From the article:

"Try making an argument for the fundamental difference between Islam and Christianity, that although both are monotheistic it is not the same god that is worshipped."

That's easy! God in the Jewish and Christain Bible says that the Jews are his chosen people. Allah, the moon god in the Qur'an says to Kill the Jews and Christians (Sura 9:29 jumps immediately to mind).

So, the assertation that it is a difficult argument to make a case as to Allah being seperate from the God of the Jews and Christians (People of the Book, in the Qur'an) is just ridiculous, to say the least.

If you need more examples, I can post at least seven more differences right off the top of my head.

Cheers,

Doctor Bulldog

The culture of western man has been totally embedded in the secular world view for over 200 years. This was the significance of Nietzshes famous "god is dead' statement. This process of secularisation began with the Renaissance and on through the so called "enlightenment" period.
What it really involved was the eclipse of BIG religion by BIG science wherein Big science became the "official" arbiter of what is True & Real.At the time Big religion was full of archaic and impenetrable mythologies which were easily refutable by the REAL knowledge about how the material universe actually works which was being "discovered" by the application of the scientific method.

What is now promoted as "religion" by the likes of Sells and Michael Casey are the remnants of religions that were created in the childhood of humankind with its parental "creator" deity. It is also entirely exoteric and therefore shares the same presumptions about what we are as human beings and the nature of the world process altogether. Human beings reduced to meat-body existence only and the "world" as a solid something completely separate from human beings. Religion providing some myths to provide consolation for the inherently terrifying condition of being identified with a vulnerable body that is going to disintegrate and die.

Meanwhile if you read the subtexts of the "news" both of the inherently TOTALITARIAN monotheistic POLITICAL religions of Islam & Christianity with their totally obnoxious only one truth/way/religion/revelation are setting the entire world up for an "endtime" final showdown which will make WW3 seem like a Sunday afternoon picnic.
The recent circuses involving the late and current Popes were effectively celebrations of western imperial power. A celebration of the power of the money changers and the associated ower elites.
Do you think "jesus" would have attended such an occasion.
Do you think "jesus" would have even been invited.
Jesus who threw the money changers out of the temple!

Doctor Bulldog,

Here's a couple from the Bible.

In Luke 19:27, Jesus orders anyone who refuses to be ruled by him to be killed.

In Deuteronomy 13:6-16, the Lord instructs Israel to kill anyone who worships a different God or who worships the Lord differently.

I can find others too, particularly concerning the manner in which God wants us to slaughter his enemies (including women, children, animals and even their trees).

The Torah also has some very interesting insights on the relationship between Jews and Gentiles regarding killing.

I think that maybe it is the same God after all.

Peter: "Try arguing with a feminist about the insistence that there should be gender balance in bodies of authority even though a great majority of women find themselves drawn towards the nurture of families."

You should try arguing with anti-feminists that there should be gendered approach to abuse of women even though a great majority of men find themselves drawn towards the protection and nurture of families.

Peter suggests that people base their foundations on myths then appeals to a secular one to support his gendered position.

Peter seems to think myth is something without a substantial foundation.

For Levi Strauss myth is, among other things, a "kind of thought" that is “half way between a precept and concepts”. Is that thought empty without God's word behind it? Or is God's word inherent in the quality of the thought itself regardless of who thinks it or what myth informs it?

Remember some people regard the Bible as myth in the sense that it is an authority's disproven attempt to explain phenomenon. For instance: cave men would have developed theories about lightning. But because it was heresy to challenge ancestral authority these remained a truth long after they were seen as myth. They remain sacred but are no longer regardes as true.

Or is myth just the traditional plot that can be transmitted. The EUREKA and ANZAC myth, for instance, are transmitted to inform our National heritage and pride. But these myths can also be hijacked by ideology. Thus we see right-wing National Action and leftist Unions transmitting/transforming the Eureka to express their very different ideals. Can hijackers imbue the Bible with ideology which is a kind of secularising of God's message?

Myth is also a way representing reality. Lugowolski said that one can have a "world view that is a form of timeless, static existence." So there is always a kind of invisible bridge or connection to our roots. A classic example is the saying: "What would Jesus do?" Here the reference point is 2000years ago. The Presence of then is now for Christians.

Nicely written article. Thanks.

Speaking of Michael Casey,his boss George Pell is a frequent visitor and participant at various talkfests put on by the Centre for "Independent" Studies and occasionally at the CIS's USA equivalents.
The Hayekian "world"-view of the CIS being totally embedded in the reductionism of scientism, with a little bit of self consoling exoteric religion thrown in.
They had their annual "religious" lecture yesterday featuring Paul Kelly of the OZ.
What would Kelly or any of the CIS participants really know about the PROCESS that is True Religion? Is he a serious religious practitioner? Is his point of view informed by any kind of esoteric understanding? By the Wisdom of the Heart? Even by the quantum understanding of Reality suggested by Einstein's famous E=MC2 eqhation and Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle. The ideas and possibilitties of which inform leading edge physics. The entire universe being a modification of LIGHT. And yet he presumes to give a speech on religion? You wont find much talk of Conscious Light at the CIS!
George is also one of the many propaganda hacks strutting the world stage promoting the superiority of western "reason". Which is rather odd because if one REALLY applied systematic and rigorous reason to any of the arguments re the "proof" of Christianity the whole entirely man made christian tower of babel falls apart. Childish psycho-babel.

I would hope that something we could all agree on is that we should protect women from being raped. It is unbelievable how difficult it is just to get people to accept this basic tenet.

And then to expand that tenet to say that force should be used against rapists.

And then expand that tenet to say that the Iraq war was the right thing to do because it closed down Saddam's rape rooms, regardless of any other reason that may have been given or imagined/fabricated by the anti-war.

And if you take that basic philosophy, of forcibly stamping out rape worldwide, starting with rapists we actually know where to find, like Saddam, then everything else falls into place.

Analyzing why the entire world failed to properly protect the Iraqi women will lead you to this:
www.mutazilah.org

Sellick says: "The experiment with rational secularism has demonstrated the fragility of the reliance on reason alone and has resulted in the abandonment of reason. Christianity offers us a way of rational reflection on the real and therefore a solid basis for being in the world. The real cannot be reduced to individual subjectivity but is to be found in Israel-history and Jesus-history."

In a world where there are no absolutes, Sellick attempts to paint christianity as one. The fact of the matter is, theology represents a sliding scale. You can't have secularism without the concept of religion and vice versa.

The 'abandonment of reason' Sellick refers to is exaggerated.
The society that is being condemned here is that of the secular west. The only thing we have to gauge the success of this society, is what we can compare it to, and when compared to religious regimes, it comes up as the most reasonable one out there.

Now the concept that the west is an inherently christian society is a valid point - but if it's basis is inherently christian, then what of the 'abandonment of reason' caused by secularism that Sellick points out? Using this argument represents a catch 22.

The only way to make this argument valid is to point to a past years in the western world that were more 'christian' and then ascribe the blame for today's ills on the fact that this religiosity has been lost.

I submit however, that it is not the decline of christianity, but the combined forces of a rise in population, a rise in conflicting aspirations (on the individual and national levels) in conjunction with a rise in encompassing media. Put those together, what do you get? the people of ancient rome lamented the decline of their world as well...

the more things change...

I really like this article; thanks for the insight Peter.

Just curious…

“Casey points out that not all secular religion is totalitarian and that there has arisen democratic variants, drawn from extreme versions of free market capitalism, feminism and environmentalism:”

Can anyone please give me an example of a secular democratic nation that has not derived its traditions, in large part, from traditional religion?

“inherently terrifying condition of being identified with a vulnerable body that is going to disintegrate and die”

Ho hum, why do you think the prospect of death is so terrifying for human beings?

New Testament:
In Luke 19:27, Jesus orders anyone who refuses to be ruled by him to be killed.
Let’s read Lk. 19:11 first:
11While they were listening to this, he went on to tell them a parable, because he was near Jerusalem and the people thought that the kingdom of God was going to appear at once.
Jesus was giving a parable about what the Kingdom of God is like. He talks about final judgment right at the end of this parable, i.e. future tense, not present. It’s not like Jesus is saying “go kill everyone who doesn’t want me to rule them”. He rebuked Peter for bringing the sword out, and He also promised His followers persecution. He also said, the Kingdom of God was to serve not to be served. Hardly sounds like a war mongering king to me.

Old Testament:
“In Deuteronomy 13:6-16, the Lord instructs Israel to kill anyone who worships a different God or who worships the Lord differently.”
Understand that the religions of the pagan lands at that time were terrible. Incest, rape, (we can assume, STIs floating around like crazy), murder, etc. God was taking the “prevention better than cure” approach with the Israelite children that had ALREADY promised themselves to Him (i.e. not just some random people).

“I can find others too, particularly concerning the manner in which God wants us to slaughter his enemies (including women, children, animals and even their trees).”
Actually the Bible says “Say unto them, As I live, said the Lord GOD, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way and live” (Ezekiel 33:11).
I believe God gave people PLENTY of time to repent. The prophets of the O.T. did not spend their time exclusively in Israel, they went into other lands as well (e.g. Jonah and Ninevah). I don’t believe God punished people until He gave them the chance to repent, made it pretty clear that was His desire, and when they chose not to, He allowed the Israelites, under His specific command, to kill them. Like I said, the Pagan religions were carrying on a lot of unholy activities (and there’s a good chance there was very poor sexual health spreading around). Why such a total retribution? When the Plague hit Europe, people were locked into their houses so they would not infect anyone. Is it difficult to imagine, in the Middle East 4000 years ago, without the modern development of medicine we have now, that it would have been much different?

Anyway I believe that in New Testament times (remember Christians believe we're in the NT), God does not allow believers to carry out His retribution for Him.

Ronnie peters.
The definition of myth is slippery. The reason that I say that Christianity is not based on myth is that all of the NT ( and much of the OT) contain references to particular dates, people and places. The particular is never eclipsed. We find ourselves dealing with this nation and this man. Thus, as I have said before, history is the medium of revelation and that saves us from the purely mythological such as Israel encountered when it was in exile in Babylon and in Canaan in the Baal cults. But we do not stay with the particular, Christ ascends to the Father and sit at his right hand. Now you may well say that here we are in the area of myth since such a thing is condemned by our cosmology. However the basis of the resurrection and ascension in the flesh does not rely on myth but on the particular, historical event and that saves it from the looseness of myth (star wars, the lord of the rings). So as regards the resurrection and ascension we find that the meaning of these is essential to stop us spinning out into a spiritualised concept of Christ and ourselves but is extremely difficult to substantiate on the basis of historical event as we commonly understand it. “Sitting at the right hand of the Father” is not just a made up concept, it refers to real but not material things that are important for how we see ourselves and the world.

We can certainly say that “Christ rose and ascended in the flesh” as it were. This is not to resort to myth but to take on a specific speech that indicates a truth that is not demonstrable by us. Does this help at all?

"We miss the point that the peaceable kingdom can only be brought about under the tutelage of the one who is both creator and redeemer".

Let me guess: this creator and redeemer is none other than Mr. Sellick's mythical sky-god, who is in fact a third of a tri-partite entity, and who, along with his son and the holy spirit (what? no daughter or wife? tsk-tsk, how very post-modern of you Mr. Sky-God), loves us, cares for us, but let's most of the best of us die needlessly while allowing the worst to live to 91 (I looking at you, body of Mr. Pinochet).

I mean, just how ridiculous is this Christian myth? Goodness me, I'm supposed to give rational analysis, the scientific method and my enlightenment heritage so that Mr. Sellick can tell the rest of how live? Because of course, the one creator and redeemer will have to have a man on earth - and I mean a man - to tutor the rest of us. And no doubt Mr. Sellick thinks he is just that man.

Well, you know what Mr. Sellick? You can bugger off: The days when priests and their acolytes could invoke the name of their almighty sky-god to scare the bejeezus out of the rest of us are over. After the witch hunts, the beheadings, the ex-communications and the rest of the terrors you and yours meeted out to the rest of us, it is now time for a new order, built on the *axiomatic* ideas of human rights, rational discourse and the scientific method.

If you think your sky-god can compete in this new order well good for you: come and join the fun, but don't expect the rest of us to bow before your "jesus-history" and "israel-history" as if those terms even mean anything. You'll have to prove your arguments just like the rest us and if you can't, well don't worry, at least you won't have to worry about being ex-communicated, or you know, burned at the stake.

Welcome to the real world of combative, rational discourse, Mr. Sellick.

Re: How does God exist?

Peter, before starting a new thread, it would have been helpful not to disregard your earlier contribution. Religion needs to be viewed from secular history.I thought "frankly" you were too busy. It seems you have time to produce a sermon.

All readers,

Suggest you change your Forum setting from last week to last month. Have a look at the last few posts under "How does God exist?". Herein, Peter wont answer the question, "Why would a REAL god" with a supreme message be cloaked with same attributes as secular gods he deems myth. He feels only a trained theologian can understand, and, demeans, secular history and secular anthropology, as tools to to assess HIS religion. Presumable, okay for other religions, Peter regards as myths.

Catch is the REAL religion and the MYTHICAL religions share a common architecture. The REAL religion is not differentiated from those of human invention. Would a REAL god produce such a poorly differentiated prouduct, when having the goal teach us? methings not.

There is a vital secular religion; it is called, mathematics. The positive heuristic is our universe is a closed system, with infinite infinities not requiring causality or original creation. In the improbable event the closed universe was somehow consciously created, the nature of that creating instrument is far outside our knowledge, and can be held only as degraded heuristic, which indications are does not exist.

Peter: You say secular religion is expressed through three main systems. Totalitarian, a democratic variant and civil religion.

Do you regard sub cultures such as those that form along the lines of music/situation as a religion? Punk culture, death/glam metal, country, Emo, and the loathed pop culture and so on. If so is bringing popular music into a church to draw crowds appealing to a secular religious interest and does this weaken the churches main tenants for religiosity?

I want to add a fourth variant. That is the secularised christianity. Is it reasonable to recognise this as well?

I really love that you point out very worthy aspect of Christianity which is that it has a foundation based on faith, hope, love and patience. I also think that the Golden Rule is also relevant here. Even if one regards the ascension and that as bollocks - the philosophical grounds on which Christianity rests is far from myth.

Philosophical rationality is an important aspect; however, it is very hard -if not -impossible for us mere humans to do what even the great thinkers can only do to a certain extent and approach theology, and especially philosophy, without ideology and convictions influencing our thinking. That was the point of my quote re: the feminists.

I just read your article again and it is really connects for me. It is also more accessible than some of your articles. More suited to us battlers on OLO. I don’t agree with everything though.

I want to ask you something. If a person is not really religious, don’t you think that if the church wasn’t so “us only” and less judgemental and less inclined to converting folk and more open to secular folk - less exclusive - don’t you think that that kind of Christianity would provide a great foundation for life for the secular ones interested. Can you accept secular people in to the fold or is Christianity about Christians only. For instance: I won’t be a pretentious hypocrite and go to church but can I be a “whatever I am” and go to church?

YngNLuvinit,

Thankyou for your correction of Wobbles' misunderstanding of Luke 19:27 saving me some bother. I feel you might also have nisinterpreted those same verses however as Jesus' parable was to correct HUMAN misundertanding of 'godly' values. Observers around Zacchareus accused him of being a sinner unlike they believed they were because he was a publican/tax collector (unliked). Zacchareus believed himself a godly man because he gave half his wealth to the poor and returned fourfold anything he believed he had unjustly gained (HE believed). The nobleman who ordered the death of HIS enemies (not of Christ's) believed he was doing right as he understood it. Christ was giving a parable that was to display to all the error of their ways ("For the Son of Man has come to seek and save what was 'lost'" Luke 19:10) Humans believe what they do under their understanding and will is perfect when in fact they move further from the true will of God each day. Christ came to show us the way (back). He does the will of His Father in heaven perfectly, not as those who preach scripture pervert it or our imperfect (like wobbles) understanding of scripture.

Sells in his virtually unimpenetrable way of expressing his elitist ideas is actually trying to do something similar but is, in my humble opinion, failing dis gracefully!

kerravon,
Research how many rapes have been performed by coalition soldiers in the 44 months of US occupation of Iraq, then consider how many more iraqi's have had their lives needlessly taken from them because GW shot of his sick mouth and ordered the removal of the one (evil) ruler who was capable of keeping some kind of peace in Iraq for over 25 years (you gotta be cruel to be kind - in the right measure...) and consider if the illegal invasion was better for iraq than leaving things as they were and letting the Iraqi's figure things out for themselves? (with perhpas a little better organised 'intervention' if we were all so concerned for their welfare).

Matthew 7:5 but read the whole chapter.

A piece of advice to begin with Sells, don't rely on your spellchecker:

>>punishment could be the loss of employment and certainly the distain of the keepers of public morality<<

I initially gave you the benefit of the doubt, but unfortunately my OED tells me that you can only use "distain" as a noun when its sense is "tint, stain, colouring".

While I was there, I thought I'd take a quick peek at the definitions of “religion” and “religious”, specifically to see whether any of them would bear the weight of Mr Casey's assertion that “it is more illuminating to treat ideology as a form of religion.”

This is fairly critical to your own piece, since you take this as the foundation of your own rhetorical question “[c]ould anyone argue that the cult of Mao was not a religious phenomenon?”

Sadly, as robust a noun as it is, none of the eight OED offerings under “religion” is anywhere near strong enough to be the cornerstone upon which you have built your article. Definition 6 allows it to be used by transference to denote “devotion to some principle; strict fidelity or faithfulness; conscientiousness; pious affection or attachment”, but then pronounces it obsolete.

I read Casey's piece with the same scepticism, fascinated as always to find how easy it is to begin an article with a false premise and build a case for the most ludicrous ideas and concepts.

Using the "all philosophies are the same as religions" argument to take potshots at atheists is relatively harmless. But a similar "start from a false premise" activity is presently taking place in Teheran under the chairmanship of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Unless it is possible to show, with clean hands, that this is demonstrably false argumentation, then "real religion" deserves the fate of becoming itself just another starting point for discussion, rather than the firm base that its adherents would like it to be.

Sorry skelett, you misunderstood the good Deacon Associate Sellick.

Hardly suprrising really since i could hardly make sense of it myself and I'm a frickin' Genius, if i do say so myself! (and have the IQ tests to prove it)

Having read the elitist pomp Sells has put out in 'discussion' (a perjorative term since that requires two or more participants and Sells does not consider there exists another here yet who is worthy of entring into such with him).
See Sells two most recent posts on this thread:http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=5101

If he ever is capable of lowering himself to your and my 'standards' we may learn something from him but don't hold your breath.

As for rational discourse, the sad truth is owing to a deplorable lowering of educational standards since the reformation and renaissance, you and I are incapable of achieving it... according to the christian Mr Sellick's view.

Not our fault apparently, but there you are.

I believe Sellick is actually trying to show that humans are incapable of following a 'true' ideology of a monotheistic God (somewhat akin to what Jesus did) because of what amounts to our base stupidity from which so very few of us ever pull our dumb arses out of - even the one's who think we do and pat ourselves on our collective backs about what good rational little secular scientists and economists we all are, still just don't get it - only Sellick does, out of all of us here, it seems.

Was i even close there, Pete?

BrainDrain, "Research how many rapes have been performed by coalition soldiers in the 44 months of US occupation of Iraq"

Any rapes performed by coalition soldiers were ILLEGAL and the perpetrators will be CHARGED and JAILED. Under Saddam, it was LEGAL for him to rape as many women as he wanted to. Do you understand the difference between LEGAL and ILLEGAL? It is absolutely shocking that you would rather leave Saddam raping women than respond to their screams. Legally raping women was "being cruel to be kind"? How would you feel if it were your daughter being raped by Saddam and there was not a damn thing you could do about it?

Check out these videos of other atrocities Saddam was doing:
http://www.benadorassociates.com/media/r9der1.ram
http://www.benadorassociates.com/media/p5osax8.ram

How can you not respond to this? It beggars belief what passes for other people's "morals".

"iraqi's ... lives needlessly taken ... GW ... sick mouth ... removal ... one (evil) ruler ... peace in Iraq for over 25 years"

Peace? Wars with Iran, Kuwait and a bloody revolution? All for NOTHING? Hundreds of thousands of people dead, for no purpose whatsoever? And you have the gall to call GW sick, after he liberated 27 million Iraqis from state-slavery? It's not GW that's sick!

"illegal invasion"

If it's illegal to bring a rapist/murderer/torturer/mutilator to justice, then the law is wrong and should be ignored and changed. Besides which, the war was a continuation of the first Gulf War, that only ended in a temporary ceasefire, which Saddam violated within 6 weeks of signing.

"Matthew 7:5"

You're quoting from the bible, the same book that failed to outlaw slavery, producing centuries of suffering, and which is clearly not spelled out in enough detail for you to recognize that modern-day state-slavery of the like that Saddam practiced also needs to be outlawed. You think your God condones you going out of your way to ensure that a rapist like Saddam remained free to rape more women? Not just failing to protect them yourself, but from trying to stop others from protecting them? Humanity has reached a new low.

Why is my life being assumed in relationship with three like minded religions/faiths created by the tribal social histories of the Middle East. I'm Celtic. I have come from a long history of spiritual faith and social values. Why did these ME faiths judge all others as pagan and their morality and social values Gods will.
Why after infecting the rest of the world by force with their religion as the highest good , they now complain when they are themselves under attack by their converts who may have found a different implication.
The value of what is written, how it is defined, who defines it, who's transliteration, what pretext, history of abuse, politics and family bloodlines. There is only one God. God is Jewish. God is Christian. God is Muslim. Who's lying?

"For example, in the 1997 film Kundun, Chairman Mao Zedong, in a face to face encounter with the Dalai Lama, tells him that “religion is poison”. Could anyone argue that the cult of Mao was not a religious phenomenon?"

Err... yes, one could certainly argue that. The cult of Mao was, ultimately, a political phenomenon. How do you define "religious", here?

I think the religious will always try to dream up reasons
to put down the various secular movements, to me this is just another
attempt.

At the end of the day, if religion gives you the imaginary
friend that you feel you need to cope with life, well fine, go
right ahead! Just count me out.

Don't confuse religion with the secular either.

As ever, Sellick seems unable to comprehend a wider universe in which his religion is but one of a number of ideologies around which people orient and organise themselves. In my understanding of the various definitions of religions (as discussed by Pericles above) the common feature that distinguishes them from other ideologies is the fundamental notion of of faith in some supernatural being/s or forces.

It would seem to suit Sellick's project to try and reduce ideologies based in the real world to the same ontological level as his fundamentally supernatural religious ideology. I guess that's why he persists in boring us with his pretentious 'theological' diatribes in this forum.

I await another bleat about how hard it is to have a decent theological discussion in this forum :P

CJ,

"I await another bleat about how hard it is to have a decent theological discussion in this forum."

Certainly seemed akin my experience with the "How does God exist?" topic. He couldn't rationalise HIS religion within history and anthropology, but saw OTHER religions as myths. Yet, what is accepted and what is rejected share a common architecture. I even tried countering with one of Peter's favoured authors (Alasdair MacIntyre), regarding his taking a piori positions. Just ignored. Same treatment towards some serious historians

It seems where there is a belief in god ignorance and blatant dishonesty prevail. It is now evident that superstition warps the mind and Christianity is a glowing example of that. Religion is the belief in magical beings wielding magic to create or influence the physical world. The magic is non-existent and requires faith (unquestioned hope that myth becomes true) which is based on paranoid superstition. Walking under ladders or not worshipping a god leads to hell or a smiting. Christians are in essence denialists denying reality, their own history and everything that contradicts them, which is almost everything and this is why nature is offensive to Christian sensitivities. Christian hatred towards the Chinese because communism is seen as secular by Christians is extraordinary. The reason is that communism in China as it was in the former USSR and most other communism is/was more moralistic than Christianity. Communism is a moralist movement as was fascism. Hitler preached the purity of clean living. Christendom cleansed the world of pagans, Hitler, the Roman Church and Stalin tried to cleans the world of Jews. The other interesting fact is that communism was invented by Christians and for 500 years communism was living to Christs teachings. The other amazing thing is the values and Morals Christians claim were invented by the Chinese by Taoists long before Jesowa and her God husband were deposed by Hebrew rebels and out of the killing fields erected Jehovah as their newly invented misogynistic god king.
Truth and knowledge are the arch enemies of poor old Jehovah (and Allah) and the problem with secularism which has brought with it freedom, liberty and equality is a free exchange of knowledge and science which apparently is terminal cancer for god(s).
Fascinating how Christians attack secularism and the freedom, liberty and equality that goes with it as Christians have to be humoured and treated with kit gloves so as not to offend them. The belief in god is the supreme form of immaturity, Christians should appreciate that they are not laughed at, spanked and made to stand in the corner.

The reaction to my previous post suggests that when it comes to the Bible, it's always about "context" as well as a multitude of interpretations, yet most people selectively quote from the Koran as if it were a literal unambiguous document.

If there is one negative statement made but several contradictions to that statement exist, it's the negative one that draws all the attention.

Hitler and the Nazis obtained justification for their beliefs and actions directly from his (albeit flawed) interpretation of the Bible and it's been the basis of many other organisations, from the Salvation Army to the Ku Klux Klan and everyone in between.

It's been said that you can tell what dominates a society from the relative height of it's buildings.

In medieval days, the Church steeple or Mosque was the dominant feature of most cities and large towns.

In the centuries that followed, Government buildings - from Town Halls to Houses of Parliament grew much larger and more imposing than their neighbours.

Now we have corporate skyscrapers overwhelming the skyline - but we can always fall back onto Holy books whenever it suits, to justify whatever actions we need to take to keep the economic and social engines running.

Wobbles good call but a few years outdated. Sky scrapers are not where its happening currently. The great temples are sports stadiums and shopping malls. May I even go as far as to suggest that development for the Olympic games constitutes one great massive wonder? Entire cities almost bankrupt themselves and draw on the resources of a nation to allow hopping, skipping and Jumping. Mighty Zeus God of Gods would be proud. On that premise I contend that the land scape of modern civilisation is dominated by even bigger icons than malls and stadiums. The franchises- McDonalds, Ikea, ect, the modern day Dutch East India companies the modern British Raj for whom the sun never sets. Yes we can wring our hands and bemoan the evil of wearing the jeans of Taiwan and the 100% beef patties of Brazil but at least franchises , malls and stadiums are not blowing up people in Iraq or Oklahoma, telling aids ravished communities to not wear condoms or banning marriages.

YngNLuvnIt - "Can anyone please give me an example of a secular democratic nation that has not derived its traditions, in large part, from traditional religion?"

Probably not, human progress and breakdown tends to build on what has come before, at it's best adding to the good that was there and rejecting the bad and at it's worst building on the bad and discarding the good.

It's the way humans do things.

But then we don't claim divine inspiration so that's OK.

Now your turn

"Can anyone please give me an example of a religion that has not derived its traditions, in large part, from foundations already laid by what has gone before?"

Ronnie, it may come as no surprise but I thought of that same discussion when I read Peter's comment as a proof of the point Peter makes (from the other side of the discussion though). So much is in the eye of the beholder.

R0bert

Oh yes another article about a dieing religion, Christianity is going the way of other beliefs. Not to many people pray to thor or Apollo these days, different ages invent different religions that’s the way of it. Peter just put yourself in the shoes of a Roman priest in Mars' temple as Christianity started to take over.

PS, Since when is the belief in the supernatural a myth? We also must have very different views on what rational thought must be because I don't think the whole trinity bit is very rational, and don't get me started on the Noah farce.

Ronnie Peters.
Idolatry is the basic criticism of religion. The OT is, among other things, a history of Israel’s struggle with idolatry, trusting in something other than God. Any aspect of culture that claims allegiance is a source of idolatry and hence may be called religious. It is alarming to see pop culture take over young minds to the extent that it determines how they see the world and how they act in it. This is substitute for a robust sense of self, a desperate attempt to define who we are by using cultural constructs and it is the antithesis of freedom.

Turn on your TV early on Sunday morning and you will get a does of secular Christianity from the televangelists. This is religion used for monetary gain or for personal healing. When Christianity is used instrumentally it becomes secular, i.e. having God on our own terms.

Christianity cannot be reduced to an ethical system, even one as simple as the golden rule. The ascension and that is not bollocks but an integral part of what Christianity is. People say that they are not religious but they believe that Jesus was a good person, so what! My neighbor is a good person, why the fuss about Jesus? Did they crucify him because he told everyone that they should be nice to each other? The significance of Jesus is that he brought about the destruction of world and the initiation of a new age. That is the significance of apocalyptic in the NT.

My point about rationality is that it is very fragile on its own, it needs a substrate and for Christians that substrate is the history of Israel and the life and death of Jesus. These historic events are crucial in a way that others are not. It would be a mistake to place Gallipoli as a seminal event, it just does not have the freight of the events described in the bible.

RObert: “Ronnie, it may come as no surprise but I thought of that same discussion when I read Peter's comment as a proof of the point Peter makes (from the other side of the discussion though). So much is in the eye of the beholder.” Wha? If it is the f-word comment – be unfair to start that up here.

Peter’s comment? Which one? You’ve lost me.

Peter Sells I respect your faith and your thoughtful words. Will it harm you or your religion if I just stick to my individual “between God and I” secular christianity?

Instrumental. Yes we do seem to be heading towards a world that sees individuals only as means. For instance: We can all think of the blatant ones such as soldiers, crime victims, innocent civilians as terrorists’ targets etc – these are just means to further other’s position and power base. The more subtle ones are also similar in thinking. A very charitable, very altruistic Christian must occasionally ask them selves what really drives him or her. Am I respecting these people as ends in themselves or am I using them as a means to my own happiness – or both. We are only human. Am I using a previous hurt to further some issue which suggests I respect people as an end or am I just imparting a guilt trip to give me leverage in an argument or gain some advantage?

Although i found this article difficult to digest, i think somewhere in there is a point that i agree with, although i am still finding it hard to pin down. It seems to me that the author is arguing for reason over dogma and I definately support that proposition. I do find it odd coming from someone whose religion has the "faith catch" and "The Commandments" as some of its main lines, so it doesn't suprise me when he follows up with presenting Christianity as the ultimate solution to the supposed 'decay of culture' problem.

To me the idea behind secularism is not to "proclaim the end of religion" but to allow freedom of religion so that one is not confined to a particular institute or another and is therefore able to utilise their reason to seek truth (or The Truth). Maybe it hasn't turned out that way in reality but i think this is more because the concept of secularism has been too frequently mingled with ideologies such as materialism or humanism and therefore it's meaning has been distorted to give these philosophies more credence than they may deserve.
This could be what the author is bemoaning and the elusive point of the article that i might be agreeing with but am having trouble grasping because it is shrouded by an insistence on his own ideological beliefs.

B-D,

Thanks for the link: I see now that without a degree in "NT Greek, church history, Old and New Testament studies, and systematic theology" my hysterical outpourings are the result of my impovished schooling. My Bad. Maybe I am further mistaken: Perhaps Mr. Sellick or one of his brothers should be God's tutor on earth. He is clearly much smarter than everyone else and it must be exasperating for him to have deal with such ignoramousi.

Still, I have nagging doubt about theology - if such a thing can even be said to exist - that I think Richard Dawkins documents:

http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/WorldOfDawkins-archive/Dawkins/Work/Articles/emptiness_of_theology.shtml

Just as a general observation: If Mr. Sellick can convince you that his imaginary friend exists, that his imaginary friend is the "creator", the "redeemer", and the tutor, that only special people with fancy degrees in "theology" can speak with/of/for this imaginary friend, then you have unilaterally disarmed yourself in the battle for control over your own life. Mr. Sellick can claim anything - even the senseless, useless or meaningless claims we've seen here - on behalf of his imaginary friend and you have no recourse. Who are you to say that Mr. Sellick did not accurately intrepret his imaginary friend?

The beauty of rational discourse and the scientific method is that anyone can independently measure the accuracy of any particular claim or argument. It is hard - very hard - but in such an environment you can remain in control of your own life.

"Turn on your TV early on Sunday morning and you will get a does of secular Christianity from the televangelists. This is religion used for monetary gain or for personal healing. When Christianity is used instrumentally it becomes secular, i.e. having God on our own terms."

Hehe, clearly nothing much has changed! Remember when the Church
of Rome used to sell indulgences? There has always been a big
quid using religion to fool the masses. Now they simply use TV.

They all seem to have their God on their own terms, often involving
money and power. Given that the history of Christianity is very much
about the history of the Catholic Church, clearly Christianity
has a very, very dubious background! Blessed be the snakeoil salesmen, they are at least a bit more honest about their intentions.

Sells, you cannot simply hide your head in the sand. Your position on this is untenable.

>>Any aspect of culture that claims allegiance is a source of idolatry and hence may be called religious<<

No. It may not. And since it may not, all your arguments that attempt to paint a rule of terror exercised by the likes of Pol Pot, Mao and Stalin in the colours of religion simply do not wash.

If you were stand at a street corner and ask 100 people whether they understood the word "religion" to be associated with the word "God", 99 would answer affirmatively.

The hundredth is likely to be a theologian, one would suspect.

This is the classic political deceit, taking a perfectly serviceable and well understood word, "religion", and scrunching it into the shape that supports your argument. The fact that you are simply copying the idea from an article written by a similarly motivated language-mangler still does not make it right.

Michael Casey, whose article excited your attention to this meretricious position, at least had the excuse that he was presenting to an uncritical audience of Catholic fellow-travellers. It is only in these circumstances that he could get away with such duplicity as this:

"An ideology or a philosophy of life is not a religion unless it takes on the attributes and functions of religion, and it is only in cases such as this that treating an ideology as a political religion is justified."

Fair enough. Can't argue with that. A religion has to have the "attributes and functions" of religion.

However - and this is the bit I object to - nowhere does he take the trouble to describe how any of his examples of "political religion" demonstrate these qualities. Having established the qualification, he then chooses to ignore it entirely, simply making the assumption - as does Sells - that no-one will notice the yawning chasm in the logic.

From the disclaimer, which categorically excludes the gunpoint rule of a tyrant, straight to the assumption of the opposite.

Tricksy. Cute. But dishonest.

Ronnie, I was making an observation about your comment regarding the debate on WRD and your perception of the approach taken by those who are opposed to a genderised approach to DV. You linked it to Peter's comment about women in power suggesting that our viewpoints seem more like a matter of faith rather than fact.

Not an attack but an observation that from this side of that fence Peters comment seemed to fit your approach - again I'm not trying to start that up here. I thought it a useful point how much perspective plays in some of these issues.

I've not gone through Sells list in detail but it's likely that for each point he makes as an example of secular religion both sides of the discussion may seem to the other side like a matter of faith rather than reason. To the holders of the views their own viewpoint
would seem as proven fact.

I'm not sure if that backs up Sell's case or undermines it but it is something I find interesting.

R0bert

One should perhaps admire Sells for taking on the ‘evil’ and idolatrous nature of secularism. Like John the Baptist he beats his nary ol’ chest crying, “Doom!” and, actually, I do sympathise with you Sells. Well-known theologian, Reinhold Niebuhr wrote, “The authority of the Bible was used to break the proud authority of the church; whereupon the Bible became another instrument of human pride. The secularists may be pardoned if, as they watch this curious drama, they cry "a plague o' both your houses"; and if they come to the conclusion that all ladders to heaven are dangerous.” I do believe many secularists are aware of the ‘sin’ of human pride, as some of the finer points of Christianity seem quite recognisable. They will perhaps avoid building their own nihilistic ladder without the need of religion.

Thomas Hobbs was even more pertinent when, after the Reformation, he wrote, "After the Bible was translated into English, every man, nay, every boy and wench that could read English, thought they spoke with God Almighty . . . and every man became a judge of religion, and an interpreter of the scriptures to himself" [Behemoth, Works, VI, 190].

I’m quite taken by the famous theologian Karl Barth when he said, “God may speak to us through Russian communism, a flute concerto, a blossoming shrub or a dead dog - through a pagan or an atheist”. Loosen up a bit Sells, even your counterparts would advise you to do so. Martin Luther King was perhaps a little liberal for your liking but he seemed to make sense, “Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity. … Never must the church tire of reminding men that they have a moral responsibility to be intelligent.” – M.L.K

We have the bandwidth. We have the connection to this God. You must submit. Submit to our authority and governance. God demands that you be obsequiously submissive. You are only useful to God in a inferior capacity. God will punish you if you do not comply. Imagine an eternity being consumed by fire. Comply, kneel, bow low. Hop, skip, jump. You have proven to be worthy and God will reward you at the time of your death. Oops. A little error there on your part mate. An eternity in Hell ought to bring you around. Remember, God loves you.

Why "rising"? There is nothing new about secular religionism. China could be said to have been involved in secular religion for two thousand years. If one takes Shamanism as a precursor to the priesthood and that the priesthood existed (Sumer) four thousand years before Jesus, one could say the secular (worldy)Christian priesthood hijacked, their God's works. (no way an oxymoron) Herein, the Church(es) are secular, with secular goals. Christ as opposed to Jesus, doesn't enter the language for decades after Jeses' death (Antioch). And Christianity did not exist until c. 1300. Albeit, as most know the kosher gospels were chosen by secular committee (325).

Of Sells, [no point addressing Sells directly]

Agree Church and State are secular religions, given a religion is an object of worship by a reference group. Churches/cltars/ministeries and flags/anthems/national heroes are examples of religious secularism. Some pompus politicians and theologians were their role gladly. A church is not God, nor is a country.

If a god did exist, then, God is God, and, any tempral intercession between said God and Its creation, is clearly secularly. Similarly, when Man creates gods that is secular too.

Cathederals would seem to be idols. Likewise, I don't see Jesus (even as a person) would kiss any Bishops' rings. How many "leaders of the flock" put on special secular gowns to demonstate their elevation over the congregation? ... Rendering unto Humanity that which is status.

Pericles,

Mao used ideology in power. Interstingly he was not really a Marxist-Lenninist. Marx and Lennin turned Hegel's ideologies into dialectical materialism, whereas, Mao turned the dialectical materialism into the ideological cult of Mao, with the "The Thoughts and Words", the Moaist Bible. But, with Mao, compliance was compulsory, unlike religion under the separation of Church and State. So, presumably, there were "Clayton's" believers in Mao. Mao based his contemporary ideologies on the Chinese penchant towards the ancient ideology of virtous behaviour.

Mao, Marx, Freud and Sells all advocate confirmation of a priori positions, avoid the search of alternative explanations, and, suppress/ignore counter-revolutionaries.

Further to my earlier post. (Re: Instrumental I meant the common everyday usage –not the Dewey, William James, Mach, Berkeley instrumentalism although there is a osmotic effect.. Simply put: Religion appeals to a source that is true or false; whereas instrumentalists govern their thoughts with the effective/ineffective measure.)

Nevertheless, this regard for humans as an end is another thing I love about true Christianity. From memory Kant believed that a true Christian must regard people as ends. That is, individuals must be valued for themselves - rather than their usefulness to an other. This becomes really challenging when you start asking questions like: If we value others doesn’t that suggest that that value is only assigned because we see something that will benefit us in them? For instance: A loves B because they are X but this means that A is appealing to something in A that yearns for X - so it is just A’s self interest. Kant I think was suggesting something much deeper than that. I think God, through Christ, for instance, showed us that we must regard people as ends in themselves. This is the Golden Rule’s message and even the Bible says it outweighs all other Rules. If you hold that the Bible is Truth then this philosophy is the Gist.

That Sells focuses on the aspects that are usually challenged as myth is fair enough.
However, I think that even a secular embracing of the Golden Rule (a Biblical truth for Sells which is reinforced by his faith ) must assist in building a firm foundation for the adherant's life. I see Sell’s point - but my point is the religious aspect and the absolute embracing of the Bible, may be the same as just accepting the basic tenant because, if those tenants are truly Godly, then that person’s life must be happier. I kind of minimalist – no fuss approach. Cut out the middle men –religion. Even if it is just an ethical thing what is the difference? Why not just accept secular christians? Isn’t God’s Job to work all that out?

Relda,
It is good to have Barth quoted at me in these pages, however I fear you have missed his point. It is not that anything can be the source of revelation as the more complete quote below illustrates.

“If the question what God can do forces theology to be humble, the question what is commanded of us forces it to concrete obedience. God may-speak to us through Russian Communism, a flute concerto, a blossoming shrub, or a dead dog. We do well to listen to Him if He really does. But, unless we regard ourselves as the prophets and founders of a new Church, we cannot say that we are commissioned to pass on what we have heard as independent proclamation. God may speak to us through a pagan or an atheist, and thus give us to understand that the boundary between the Church and the secular world can still take at any time a different course from that which we think we discern. Yet this does not mean, unless we are prophets, that we ourselves have to proclaim the pagan or atheistic thing which we have heard.” CD 1,1 p55

Do you fancy yourself as a prophet and founder of a new church

Ah! Sells. Good to see your response. How I’m seen is nay for me to say. Perhaps just a very average prophet in quite an ancient church.

Peter Sellick fires his broadside at so many different targets it is difficult to know where to begin. Environmentalism, economics, the Enlightenment, democracy (curiously described as "democratic political religion" by Sells via Casey) and many many other beliefs get hit. Everything bad in the modern world (genocide, wars, totalitarianism, Big Brother) is the fault of secularism. Then we get the remarkable equation of myths=belief systems=religion=the end of Western Civilization. Even Judeo-Christian Values (in the form of "Israel-history and Jesus-history") get a guernsey.

While Peter Sellick, Michael Casey and Archbishop Pell might be all set to board the Back To Before The Enlightenment Express I suspect there aren't too many other fare-paying passengers. Is Peter really suggesting dumping the entirety of post-Enlightenment thinking? This seems a very high price to pay for the prospect of more edifying TV.

While agreeing that there is much to decry in the modern world (Britney Spears springs readily to mind) much of the worst of it may be ignored by using a very simple strategem. Get rid of your TV. My wife and I went TV-free for six years. We have one now, but it is rarely turned on. If the other 99% of Australian households did the same Australia would be a much better place (in my opinion). No need to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Sells
I thought every human being was directly linked to God in body through spirit and thus prophets of God. Who is to claim that they are gifted with more than ordinary spiritual or moral insight. Applying quantitative or qualitative values to spiritual insight is very egotistical. Only a very course man/woman would have their children compete for affection. To create a state of rivalry and have the most neediest win their attentions. I suspect such behavior would fall under child abuse. As a spiritual person I can well do with out that aspect of religion as a way to God.
Secular religion is an oxymoron. What religion can be, but not be, specifically religious?

People predisposed to a religosity love absolutes and authority. On the other hand, the secular perspective is an acknowledgement that there are no absolutes and no final authority.

The secular "myths" are merely abstractions, they are not dogma. At a particular point in time, it may appear the secular position is committed to feminism or multi-culturalism but the dialogue continues and evolves, bits are added, discarded and fine tuned. The constants, like equality and liberty, are subject to continuous debate and re-evaluation. Whilst, secularism has created its fair share of monsters these are but footnotes to religions' excesses.

The religious create and sustain immovable myths to awe and ensnare; to bend reality to a predetermined and inflexible narrative. The comfort this generates empowers the adherent with a fantastic disingenuity.

Caseys' article recognises, unconsciously atleast, that Secular Humanism is every religions' greatest threat. If the secular movement alone can create and sustain a vibrant and moral society than religion as we know it becomes redundant.

Whilst, I acknowledge that the secular dialogue has become decadent in recent times and requires re-energizing, this does not mean we should look to medieval scholasticism for inspiration. Rather, secularism must reconnect with its parent for inspiration - philosophy.

Interestingly enough, religion also inherited all its genius from philosophy but it was born and remains an ungrateful child.

Dear Yebiga, you are quite honest..but perhaps not making enough of the CONSEQUENCES and moral ramifications of a relativistic social morality.

Though you do comment accurately that the secular position has become 'decadent' :) Hmmm.. now that statement alone raises the question of "on what basis do you define 'decacent' " ?

You also said:

[Secular Humanism is every religions' greatest threat.]
Response: Not in the slightest. It might threaten some religions, but not Christianity, which is not based on the concept of a state, but of a spiritual commonwealth separate from the stream of secular history.

The true and only valid role of the Church in the world in regard to morality and values is this :

Matthew 5
13"You are the salt of the earth.
14"You are the light of the world. ....let your light shine before men, that they may see your good deeds and praise your Father in heaven.

Our calling is not to 'be' the government, but to call any government to account before God. It is a prophetic role. We are but signposts pointing to the Father. People can choose to take the left fork or the right at the junction.

Secular religion has inDEED created its own myths.. such as this rip snorter "Doing good is good to do, because it is" which one "Peace" activist pointed out to me when I contacted her one time. All I can say is 'duh'.

Our faith is not based on Myth, unless you call historical events 'myths'. On the contrary.. as Paul said regarding Christ's resurrection.

1 Cor 15:4
...that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve. 6After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. 7Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, 8and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.

Hardly a 'myth'.

cheers cobber

Oliver, the fact that "Mao used ideology in power" does not qualify communism (or Maoism, or whatever) as a religion.

To view totalitarian control-freakery as a religion falls sweetly into the trap set by Sells, and also Michael Casey, whose article Sells refers to.

Casey presents the issue as follows:

"An ideology or a philosophy of life is not a religion unless it takes on the attributes and functions of religion, and it is only in cases such as this that treating an ideology as a political religion is justified."

This I can readily agree with, if only because the argument is entirely circular.

However, when Casey actually describes a “political religion”, the cracks are exposed. He states on the one hand that:

"The totalitarian variant of political religion is distinguished by integralism and intolerance, the sanctification of violence in the service of human regeneration, the denial of individual autonomy, the primacy given to the community and self-sacrifice, and distinct rituals and mass liturgical celebrations”

[Sounds much like Christianity doesn't it – but that's another story]

This he contrasts with “democratic political religion”, which according to him “makes explicit appeals to inclusiveness and tolerance, repudiates violence, recognises individual autonomy and does not have a pronounced ritualistic and liturgical dimension.”

What “attributes and functions of religion” are displayed by his description of “democratic political religion”? None.

It flies squarely in the face of Casey's own prerequisites, and in doing so, effectively destroys the Maoism=Religion argument, and any variant of the politics=religion argument.

On its own this might seem harmless sophistry. But the intention is clear: call all political and social movements “religions” so that they may be compared in a religious, rather than a political or social context. This in turn deflects attention from the “is there a God?”, “is there only one God?” and “am I worshipping the right God?” arguments that most people believe is at the heart of religious discussions.

I have observed that Christians actually do not believe in god at all. That subconsciously Christians know that God is just a product of imagination. Aside from the fact that god , his nature and abilities , his views and his motives is limited to the intellect of the believer and the believer must on some level know all they say and chose to believe is a product of their own imagination there is a concrete indicator that this is so.

If John Howard, Elton John, Joe Blow claimed they were god Christians would reject it as false. The reason is because they know subconsciously that god is impossible. If god was possible there would be no reason why a rock, a screwed up piece of paper or even secularism itself was not god. If Christians truly believed god was possible then they have to admit god could be anything and do anything ie if god existed then there is nothing to say that god did not create man, he only destroys man. God could be evil itself , or god could be benign , that is to say god could exist but have had nothing to do with this universe. God could be a single atom inside a cows hoof completely mindless and ignorant. That is of course if god is impossible.

Christians know that their god has no credibility so they recognise that religion is derogatory and degrading. The current Christian propaganda attacking secularism is an attempt to bring secularism way low down to the level of religion.

Secularism, like good science and atheism is not understood by Christians and this is why they present a weird and contorted argument. Simply they cannot understand systems that are not organised by emotional bias.

If you return to this topic as presented in the media, the Christian websites, go and listen to a sermon or re-read this thread you will find that Christians choose to see the world as prophets and soothsayers because it is integral to their dungeons and dragons style game role playing.

I agree with those words of Mao's. Of course not what he did but those words are true today and have been since man started manipulating people through their fears and beliefs.

Religion has no place today, it is trouble and hate, not what is written. Spirituality though is vital to all of us as individuals and should be left to us to decide rather than being pushed into identifiable groups simply through peer pressure and more.

As to mateship. Howard doesn't know the meaning of that word in the Australian context. To me his version of that word is being able to rely on people to support what he does regardless of what it is. That's not mateship, it's bullying.

So many politicians ride on the soldeirs backs, using them for political gain, then forgetting them when they need help having seen war up close.

In that context mateship is indeed what was seen in all Australia's involvements in war. It was simply doing what had to be done to help themselves and their fellow combatants in life threatening situations.

It disgusts me what Howard does to these people, how he uses them and runs away when money is needed to help them try and recover after doing what they were ordered to do. Of course he's not alone in that, he's just made it an art form.

The entymology of 'Religion' is enlightening and may help eliminate misunderstandings being raised in this post and others. It reaches the English language via Latin (via French). 'Religio' meant scrupulousness, exactness, of people. When applied to Gods it meant something worthy of sanctity, worship; a holy place or thing. Meaning it's superior to mere human falibility.

Religion in English (c: 1200)- "state (way) of life bound by monastic vows," also "conduct indicating a belief in a divine power." (monastica is the latin translation for religion) it was therefore first used in English to mean a 'way of life' as typified by those in monastery's, ie. dedicated to a supreme power other than one's self.

In this sense all of us are 'religious' in that we dedicate our way of life to one, or a bundle of, 'divine' concept(s) to which we devote our 'belief', in hope that we eventually are rewarded with the achievment of some kind of heaven (retirement on the beach) We do this even if we don't actually believe that it is our will to do this (enforced devotion to a higher 'power', working for an unappreciative boss/god) and we truly believe that if we had the chance we would be doing something different (following our OWN will rather than the demands of our society).

If we use religion in this sense we can better appreciate what Sells was trying to relate: today we mostly give our lives over to a dedication to 'higher' powers (such as the Holy Buck), the god of personal freedom, etc. but which are essentially without a 'true' foundation. (Rock, 'Peter')

The definition of Myth has also become corrupt today.
C:1830, from Gk. mythos "speech, thought, story, myth," of unknown origin.
(Cont next post)

Kerravon,
I can assure you i have not forgotten your abysmal logic and will respond at a time and place of my choosing, this thread is possibly not the best place as we are way off topic. Maybe you should start a discussion since you feel so passionately?

Myths are "stories about divine beings, generally arranged in a coherent system; they are revered as true and sacred; (emphasis on TRUE) they are endorsed by rulers and priests; and closely linked to religion.Once this link is broken, and the actors in the story are not regarded as gods but as human heroes, giants or fairies, it is no longer a myth but a folktale. Where the central actor is divine but the story is trivial ... the result is religious legend, not myth." [J. Simpson & S. Roud, "Dictionary of English Folklore," Oxford, 2000, p.254]

Myths were the exoteric representation of an esoteric 'truth' told as ways those of limited understanding (peasants) could more personally represent a basic, fundamental and TRUE principle. Supposedly wise men today look at the myth that has entered into 'common' understanding and only see the fairytale of a man god throwing a lightening bolt representing the 'true' reason lightening happens and so equates myth with superstitious 'untrue' rubbish incapable of scientific scrutiny, rather than understanding the higher truth the myth actually represents.

It is analogous to how future generations of pygmy's might 'understand' their ancestor's first meeting of 'gods' who flew to earth in a big shiny bird made of silver and gold. The truth is far removed from the later 'myth'.

Man consistantly fails to properly understand our own past and our current reality, partly through imperfect translation of word meanings and poor logic structure. Sadly, we are human and falible after all.

As many posts here from otherwise quite intelligent people prove.

West,
i sincerely hope I am misinterpreting your words but if, as I suspect I am not, I would be ashamed of possessing such a poor ability to correctly use logic as your last post demonstrated. Reading that i am inclined to agree with Sells concerning standards of education over the last 500 years and that galls me more than you can imagine. (agreeing).

Pericles,

Thank you for your post.

1. Mao carried forward indigeous beliefs for his own purpose. Historically, the leaders of the Middle Kingdom held the Mandate of Heaven. In this frame, the Chinese people (peasant revolts aside)tended to be conditioned to be deferential to secular religious authority. Mao played on this cirumstance, for his own opportunity.

Moreover, he made pronouncements, punished his "sinners", as counter-revolutionaries, and, was said to have achieved superhuman feats, such as, swimming at better than Olympic times. His thoughts were codified in a doctrinal Bible (Thoughts and Words)>

Mao's thoughts were the locus of a secular ideology. All of human invention. Mao used the secular "religious predispostions", pre-existing to be exploited. More like creative accounting (carryng a figure forward)than circular confirmation.

My definition of "secular" religion to be broad, "a reference group worshipping an object/person".

Pye actually refers to Maoism as a "cult". Also, I noted compliance was manatory, so they were "Clayton's_ believers. However, children did turn-in, to authorities, their parents on the basis of Maoist doctrine. So there were serious disciples: Give up your parents and come with me>

2. In the West, priesthoods came into existence in Sumer to control/administer (read: have power over)land (owned by gods). In our tradition, these ministeries morphed.

The Jesus event (may have) happened four thousand years later. New Churches and priesthoods, more primitive structures, captured the Jesus event and have managed in for the past two thousand years. That is, churches and priesthoods, are also secular:

Equally, contrived as, Maoism.

3. In this sense, both Mao and the Churches are intercessionist. If there were God or Heaven, or, a residal aftermouth of the same; Mao and the Churches, have stepped into the shoes of the divine, for "them" to control and for "them" interpret. Sells, is a perefect example:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=5101

4. Secular religionism was a topic much debated c. 1800-1850. Compte and French revisionist thinkers supported individualism and independent thought, which, of course, put them on a collision course with collective self-authorative churches and elite ministeries, whom were/are also secular, but pretended/pretend to be divine, by proxy.

Oliver, if I follow your argument correctly, it would be equally valid to say "there is no such thing as religion".

To most ordinary folk, the words "religious" and "secular" are antonyms. Somehow you (and Sells) have managed to force-feed these poor words with the corn of marginal meaning until they have become the foie gras of synonyms. Distended, bloated, but somehow tasty.

In order to help me with this dilemma, could you please explain the difference between the two words, secular and religious? But without the use of qualifiers - i.e. no hiding behind constructs such as "secular religion" or "political religion" - or even "secular politics" - until we have sorted out the basics.

If you can separate them, I think you will find that the artificiality of the premise will suddenly appear in plain view. Pol Pot was never a religious figure, nor was Stalin.

If you cannot, then we have the situation where, the two terms being indistinguishable and/or interchangeable, you have single-handedly caused religion (and its trappings, such as God) to disappear.

Good work!

Pericles,

THE LITTLE BIG HORN

"To most ordinary folk, the words "religious" and "secular" are antonyms.

I do appreciate what you are saying. Just the same, one will find there exists a significant body of literature on "secular religion". It was major topic of discussion, and, was, so called, in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, when liberal individualism clashed with orthodox religion. Discourse, freely used, the, perhaps, inappropriate, "secular religion/ious" construction.

"Secular" religionism? Maybe, because the freedom to think for oneself was seen to be "in substitution" for the church (religion)? Secular religionists? John Stuart Milne? Voltaire? I will check.

Maybe, I see "religious" valid mainly as an adjective. But, as The Religion of the God Zot, it becomes problematic, because gods are secular constructs.

As an adjective, "religious", rightfully or wrongly, seems to be used, as a "zealous belief" in something: gods, a leader, a political party, with or without theistic connotations... Pericles, you say inappropriately. Herein, I do appreciate your point... A etymological bastardisation, true, but, an accepted bastardisation.

It appears there is divergent understanding of the meaning of the word - religion. A reference was made earlier that it meant “scrupulousness, exactness, of people”… in other words, being a good, upright and moral boy or girl.

I understand its root is in the Latin term ” religare” – to bind together.

Our stories bind us to meaning and purpose. And stories abound in the Israel-history and Jesus-history that Peter (Sells) seeks to inform us of. And these stories are all about revealing Truth in inspired work as the God of Promises revealing Himself.

Stories are not limited to myths. They can be based in truths; refer to the nursery rhymes and games we sang as kids.. Ring around the rosy – being a direct reference to the human horror of the Black Plague.

One man’s story is another woman’s nice piece of music. This week, I attended the Sydney Opera House for a performance of G.F. Handel’s Messiah. What a delight; the work and its performance. My friend, a believer rather than of faith, took great pleasure in the wonderful music and performance of the soloists, choir and orchestra with Conductor.

I had the extended delight in having my story related through the libretto so beautifully crafted from biblical commentary. It is my story owing to my humanity in comman with Jesus and my response in faith in him as the Risen Lord. It is a story linked back to Abraham and living on “for generations yet to born”. I take this delight as a bonus in living experience.

Continued

Continued...

Can I pose a question? What price do we pay as a people when disconnected from our story and not connected to a better, more sustaining one? Or is linking to a story only for the emotionally crippled, the fearful and ignorant. It always astounds me when I hear people gushing over the Rainbow Serpent Story, splendid and meaningful as it is in the time and place of Aborigines, yet disparaging any reference to our own Israel / Jesus story. A story grounded through a time in advance of, the actual time of the Presence, and the time since, all across many millennia into the future for a completion with all in Him – the Omega point.

Can I ask of our secular friends; what is your story. Surely not just a biological - chemical mix which we will some day know more of, but hardly any of, but enough to prescribe happiness, joy and peace amidst an inevitable oblivion.

Surely it isn’t the removal of ecclesiastical shackles or the adornment of mechanistic reason. What is the binding agent in secular religions? Or is it all a myth

Boxgum
Judaism/Christianity/Islam are regional, Middle Eastern constructs involving myth, tribal histories, some adaptation of pagan ritual, law, cultural and social beliefs, and politics. Most of the world has no connection to these elements. Their converts by marriage, war, or birth.
The British of yesterday were not natural Christians. When the Romans invaded one of the first things they did was kill all the Druids who were the Celtic priest and educators. Britons adopted Christianity but also had to make it their own. For example the split with Rome and the making of the Church of England. Also during the 17th-18th century in England there was recorded more than 1000 different Christian sects.
Iranians aren't natural Muslims, Islam invaded, but they're trying to make it their own and are fighting to have their version respected. Shia Muslims are repressed by the Sunni majority in the ME.
Most people today are looking for a spiritual connection or understanding in their religion, not another level of government.
I want my Druid back. :-)

Boxgum,
Concerning ‘myth’ I believe you make some pretty relevant comment. Recently I came across an interesting quote made by American author Jack Mule, “Every society needs stories that confront the ultimate issues of the human condition. Modern societies like to pretend they are more ‘advanced’ than other societies. They believe myth is for ancient primitive societies…They believe they have replaced myth with…objective reports of the real world. They fool themselves”.

What has perhaps happened within a part of the Christian religion are biblical literalists who have ‘dumbed’ down any interpretive or critical analysis to a narrow and unimaginative view. Theologian Paul Tillich argues that myths are symbols of faith, which tell stories to portray situations of ultimate concern. Myths may be ‘broken’ or ‘unbroken.’ Unbroken myths are myths which are accepted as literal statements of reality. Broken myths are myths that are interpreted as myths, as symbolic statements of reality. I would suggest many within Christian beleif continue to reside in the area of ‘unbroken’ myth.

Boxgum and Relda.
I think that you are right about our problem with myth. Bultmann’s program of demythologization required that we first mythologise events described in the bible that did not fit our cosmology. Christology was captive to modern cosmology and lost its true character. But what does it mean to affirm the resurrection and the ascension of the man Jesus “in the flesh”. Our cosmology can have only two answers, either Jesus is in low orbit around the earth or the ascension was a made up story and his bones lay somewhere in Palestine. Yet if we do not keep the “in the flesh” we do damage to theology by losing the particular man Jesus transforming him into “idea” or “spirit”. It is absolutely necessary that the crucified and risen one and the ascended one is the particular human Jesus who walked and taught in Galilee and was crucified under Pilate. We can resort to talking about the Christian story and there is some mileage in that but it still does not solve the inherent problem of the locality of Jesus. None of the solutions to this problem are solved by resorting to myth since myth is ahistorical and universalizing, whereas resurrection and ascension are both historical in a way of speaking since they both rely on the actual presence and death of a particular man. When the ascension is taken seriously we know that Jesus is no longer with us, his absence leaves us with baptism and Eucharist which are the work of the spirit. It is the work of the Spirit to form a bridge between the absent Jesus and his followers, thus the ambiguity of the church, the absence/presence of its Lord, or in Williams “the absence of a presence”. None of this talk is truly mythological, there are no dragons and elves. It is interesting that the rise in interest in myth at the movies coincides with the loss of a theological language that destroys all dualism and is grounded in humility, that is humus, earth. Read more of this in “Ascension and Ecclesia"Farrow.

Johnj.
I can see how you can see it that way. I am certainly not suggesting that we dump the Enlightenment, who would return to bad plumbing and the black death? My point about the Enlightenment is that it was far too successful in a limited direction, the explanation and the control of the physical world, to the extent that thousands of years of deeply thought theology was thrown out leaving us in a greatly enhanced physical environment but a depleted “spiritual” one. The misunderstanding was that because “spiritual” (what other word could we use) was not physical, there was no place for it. That would have been a fine conclusion for the real spiritual or mythological religions, which had to go because of their pantheism, but it mistook the true nature of Christianity that we are only now recovering. The problem for theologians, and this is reflected in the structure of Australian universities, is that there is no room for them in modernism. There is perhaps more room for them in postmodernism that has successfully punctured the balloon of the modern experiment. Modernism is based on the empirical method, you have to see something, experience it yourself for it to be true. This is why scientists, those very intelligent people, can be so narrow, so uncultured in their outlook on life. They may be masters of their particular field but are often very dumb when taken out of it. Richard Dawkins is the typical modern man. As a working scientist I know about this, these people are my friends, but try having anything even approximating a theological conversation and all bets are off. It is as if we speak a different language, which I guess is true, we do! So we have a lot of things to thank the Enlightenment for, but for theology it is best name the Endarkenment

Braindrain you made two conscious misrepresentations to try and spin superstition as somehow valid “In this sense all of us are 'religious' in that we dedicate our way of life to one, or a bundle of, 'divine' concept(s) to which we devote our 'belief', in hope that we eventually are rewarded with the achievement of some kind of heaven (retirement on the beach) We do this even if we don't actually believe that it is our will to do” and “If we use religion in this sense we can better appreciate what Sells was trying to relate: today we mostly give our lives over to a dedication to 'higher' powers (such as the Holy Buck), the god of personal freedom, etc. but which are essentially without a 'true' foundation. (Rock, 'Peter')”

The divine is a superstitious concept, divinity or the sense of divinity is based on paranoid or neurotic delusion, what you are suggesting is two things there, that everybody is delusional and paranoid and thus has some form of believe in divinity. Many people are not superstitious. You are also suggesting divinity has validity, of course it has not. Divinity is a construction of immature minds that can not or are too afraid to get a healthy grasp on reality. If you fear your boss you have problems.

As far as worshipping a higher power (such as money) - Secular society does not worship money, utilitarian functionalist institutions such as banks ect are not alters but are formats to manage the product of social exchange. It is the same story for everything else you claim as secular religion. It is the religious that worship money. Pentecostals explicitly worship money, wealth is a divine sign. Western Christians call wealth worship the work ethic. Christians build their temples to their occult god out of money. Name one TV evangelist show where money is not mentioned once? Name one church that actually can back up their rhetoric exist on god and not have to expose the fraud that the belief in god is by passing around a collection plate or charging tithe.

Sell Jesus himself is myth. This is a two edged sword because history does not support the existence of Jesus at all. Jesus never put pen to paper. No eye witness accounts of Jesus were put to paper. Pontius Pilate had never mentioned Jesus in his reports to Rome. Herods clerks had not mentioned Jesus. Both the Romans and Herods record keeping were on par with modern public records. The New Testament writers described a later Jerusalem rebuilt after the catastrophe. The New Testament writers even got the Roman and Hebrew legal system wrong seemingly confusing Pilate with minor regional magistrates. Of course the story of Jesus is coincidently the story of the older Roman military cult of Chrisos. A man Jesus may have existed but no honest person would claim that Jesus did. If he did exist it is irrelevant, what we are talking about is Christian beliefs, the occult worship of a deified fetish, a glorified Harry Potter, a game of dungeons and dragons.

Tribal religions will be a product of the level their scientific ability can disprove it. We know the Bible is fictional because we know who wrote it, we can even pin point the invention of Jehovah. We know who wrote the Old Testament and why. Unlike tribes we have access to records kept by surrounding nations older than god. We know gods are lie dependent. We see Christians must blatantly lie to support their god , we see anti secularists have to attempt to pervert truth in order to make it seem as if secularism is as derogatory as the belief in god. We see that Christians have to attack opposing arguments with unbacked slurs that opposition is illogical and somehow the claim omnipresent magicians are logical. Bottom line the belief in god is unsound, the sufferer of spirituality could seek help to reject their god or suffer in their own privacy. This is not the problem; the problem is the religious try and spread their woes. Like ‘Fat is Beautiful’ campaigners attempt to make the world fat to make themselves feel better

"This is why scientists, those very intelligent people, can be so narrow, so uncultured in their outlook on life. They may be masters of their particular field but are often very dumb when taken out of it. Richard Dawkins is the typical modern man."

Ahem, given Dawkin's reasoning abilities, IMHO he frankly makes
some of the religious look like complete idiots! If culture
means believing in imaginary friends, well go right ahead, I don't
want any part of it and Dawkins is smart enough to not believe
in them either.

Yabby,

Any thinking athiest would appreciate the intellect of a Abelard, a Luther or an Augustine. Likewise, a Gell-Mann, a Heisenberg or a Polanyi, deserve our respect. It is "truly" narrow to believe otherwise.

Also, what is narrow is to adopt an "a priori" position and stay super-glued to that one position. Alternative explanations are not explored. Orthodoc religionism is a good example. But that is not to say, there is no religious scholarship. Herein, religionists can be pandantically precise (say a tense in Koine Greek). Catch is, they can at the same time be inaccurate ( the text is a fiction). Centripedal forces (social, narrow mindedness, conviction) keep the religionist arrested.

West,

Interesting post about Pilate. Are you saying that (Prefect) Pilate's contemporary court records for the Jesus period are known to and do exist today? Citation?

Sells, I can agree with you on the Modernist Programme. Its been a material triumph, but a philosophical calamity. However, it is important not to underestimate the human misery obviated by clean drinking water, flush toilets, hot water and refrigeration (note that I don't include the motor car or the television in this list). But the benefits of technological civilization are not universally shared in the first world, let alone elsewhere.

If there is a modern secular religion, I think its probably the worship of material goods and the market. It has become painfully obvious that consumerism is not an ongoing fount of human happiness. Many are glutted, but most still seem unsatisfied. Clearly human beings need more than an accumulation of "stuff" to live a satisfying life.

My wife (a deeply religious person) admires the "clarity" of Dawkins' thinking. You invoke him as a "dumb modern man" outside his field of expertise at your peril. By way of contrast I'll give you a couple of anecdotes related to two Christian friends of mine. One invited me to his charismatic church, where there was preaching of "prosperity doctrine" speaking in tongues and laying on of hands. The other (a scientist and evangelical Anglican) pointed to the stars one night. I expected him to remark on the glory of God's creation. Despite being an agnostic, I would probably have agreed. Instead he said "isn't it amazing that the whole universe will be dismantled on Judgement Day". He expected Judgement Day to happen soon, perhaps even in his own lifetime.

Can you really say Peter that these views (not uncommon in some Christian churches) constitute part of Christianity's "claim to reasonableness". Or do they represent the same "retreat from reason" and irrationality you claim modern secular thought has fallen into? Give me a grumpy prosylitizing atheist like Dawkins any day.

Secular Relativism is an abomination.

It does not fit into either the modern or ancient secular humanist narrative. From the renaissance, the enlightenment, the age of reason through to the 20th century, - secular humanism has always balanced the demands between community and the individual.

Relativism is the elimination of community for the individual. Its logic returns civilisation full circle - to the stone age. It is worthy of an adolescents' fancy. Unfortunately, it has successfully seduced well educated but remote academics, who failed to spend the necessary minute to digest its logic.

When the liberal academic wonders how stupid Australians' have become and shakes his or her head at the re-election of Howard, they need to look at their own credulity with relativism. The excesses of relativism have given impetus to the the contemporary right wing and fundamental religious backlash.

I am a despondent secular humanist. I have despaired at the contemporary intellectuals' enchantment with relativism. With a flagrant sense of superiority academics and intellectuals have undervalued the Western narrative as paternalistic and embarassing.

What they failed to appreciate was the extraordinary arrogance in such a position. As if, you can separate yourself from the human condition and fashion it anew in accordance to your own refined tastes. This presumption is ironically as concieted as any religious fundamentalists'.

This is the seed of disaster. Our intellectuals have for generations now shown no respect towards our own history. As a result, much of our wisdom is now, if not lost, to be rediscovered. Again ironically, in the ancient pages and philosophies of our western narrative you will find relativism discussed. Only, Ancient philosophers and thinkers spent the necessary minute to reject it in favour of community.

But make no mistake, secular humanism which balances the demands between the individual and community has powered all of mans' progress during the last 500 years. Its reassertion will make religion as we know it redundant.

There are those in our society who masquerade as intellectuals and purveyors of social morality and ethics. Who promote social self-flagellation and cultural suicide. They insinuate everything we are is bad and we have been bad for years, we don't do anything good or decent, but victimize. They're constantly on the attack, picking away at our institutions, our culture, the entirety of our society. Any thing positive is attacked and corrupted until it is replaced by a non-thing, a grey, valueless entity that is touted as the better thing than anything definite and socially uniting. They gather those equally weak of character to them like flies to a rotting carcass. They are destroyers and have no intention of creating or assisting in creating a society. They're not interested in anything but picking at scabs and there are just enough idiots around hoping to smash something while hiding safely with in the mob. The nature of their art is fad, discontentment, dissatisfaction, distraction. They, with a hardy slap on the back fleece their own converts. They are sheeple herdsmen. Worse of all...they think themselves clever.

Boaz: "Our faith is not based on Myth, unless you call historical events 'myths'. On the contrary.. as Paul said regarding Christ's resurrection.

1 Cor 15:4 ...[bla bla bla]...

Hardly a 'myth'."

Sells: "...When the ascension is taken seriously we know that Jesus is no longer with us, his absence leaves us with baptism and Eucharist which are the work of the spirit. It is the work of the Spirit to form a bridge between the absent Jesus and his followers, thus the ambiguity of the church, the absence/presence of its Lord, or in Williams “the absence of a presence”. None of this talk is truly mythological, there are no dragons and elves..."

Sorry to burst your bubble, guys, but the resurrection and ascension nonsense is the central myth of Christianity. You can dress it up in as much convoluted discourse as you like, but your faith is utterly dependent upon treating such twaddle as reality.

While it suits your project to equate mythic activities with history on the basis that some deluded neolithic goat-herders told some stories about a guy who probably existed, to someone else who wrote them down, they have no more truth value than do the writings of Brigham Young, nor the voluminous ramblings of Roswell freaks etc.

Sells: "...As a working scientist I know about this, these people are my friends, but try having anything even approximating a theological conversation and all bets are off..."

There it is - the bleat!

Oliver with all Roman records handed down through monasteries and Byzantium and Egyptian Gnostics, with all the records of Judea’s surrounding states , of all the discourse amongst writers at the alleged time of Christ not one mention of Christ is made. Letters concerning Jesus that make up the New Testament were written by people that had never met Jesus. Jesus if he existed never put pen to paper himself. The first mention of Jesus outside of the occult letters which make up the New Testament came from Tacitus some time between AD 68 and AD 117. Tacitus refers only to Christian involvement in the great fire of Rome and Nero’s response. The reference to Jesus is only that he is the founder of what Tacitus describes as a ‘deadly superstition’ and ‘depraved’ and ‘shameful’. Still harsh considering Tacitus admits Nero did not have the actual arsonists prosecuted but any Christian would do.

We must keep in mind that Christianity was not the same superstition as it was after Constantine and Christ was not the same idol that Christians worship today. In its early period Christianity was a diversity and amalgam of religions and Jesus was not always human, but also animals and demon like creatures depending on the Christian sect.

Constantine chose to amalgamate the core belief of the superstition – Judaism and the cult of Mithras (Chrisos) with the conversion of the cult of Jupiter to the cult of Jehovah.

There is no argument that Christianity is a Constantinian design constructed for purposes of population control. The Old Testament suffers the same fate. It is known that the Hebrew Bible is a rework of the Law of David by Ben Sera to appease the cult of Moses in times of desperate civil conflict not unlike Iraq. A good example is Moses flight to Egypt which passed unrecorded by anybody until Sera. Even the Egyptians apparently had never heard of Moses or a great Jewish exodus.

Christianity ethnically cleansed Europe and rewrote history to accommodate superstition.

West,
you place me in a dilemma. On one hand i have to detest your deplorable penchant for placing your own ignorant bias on others
'I have observed that Christians actually do not believe in god at all. That subconsciously Christians know that God is just a product of imagination. Aside from the fact that god , his nature and abilities , his views and his motives is limited to the intellect of the believer and the believer must on some level know all they say and chose to believe is a product of their own imagination there is a concrete indicator that this is so.'
'The reason is because they know subconsciously that god is impossible. If god was possible there would be no reason why a rock, a screwed up piece of paper or even secularism itself was not god.'
'Secularism, like good science and atheism is not understood by Christians and this is why they present a weird and contorted argument. Simply they cannot understand systems that are not organised by emotional bias.'
'Braindrain you made two conscious misrepresentations to try and spin superstition as somehow valid'

ALL of those statements are true only, and because, of your twisted misunderstandings based on your own emotional bias.

And then I have to congratulate you on your later fairly skillful representation of the errors of the 'christian' and 'judaic' 'religious mythologists' who desire only to possess power over a community group.

You represent in one person the utter correctness and total innaccuracy of ALL humans in one clearly observable phenomenon.

Thank you - now i understand the dilemma (that is not one) perfectly!

While we live on Earth, we are spiritual beings entirely consumed by 'real' world physicality, and we battle to make sense of such Truth. Some have the necessary wit and insight to see 'deeper' than others.

None of us has the ability to see all truth. Only the truth our limited evolution allows each one of us.

P.S. Secular is literally 'thought not from the Clergy' make of it what you will.

West,

Thank you for your informative reply.

When I have looked into the matter of sect, I have found it had to push back before c. 50-60.

So, that I can place correct emphasis MYSELF when is similar discourses in the future, can I say:

1. Pilate's records of the period DO exist now.
2. Parsing THOSE records shows no indication the Jesus trial.

What I am getting at is, imagine the Iliad is lost to History. One cannot say Homer did not write about the Cyclops in the Iliad. As the Iliad does exist NOW, we can say, there is mention of the Cyclops, but, no Fred Nerks of Jesus Christs mentioned. See my point?

Even if JC is not god or in a godhead, but, instead a historical person or some sort of composite, we owe our understanding of historical events to refined towards the ascertaining the "tight" circumstances.

Braindrain what exactly is this spirituality that you claim everybody has? Does spirituality mean something other than ego? Because you claim everybody has it and yet I dont have it , most people I know dont have it and those that I know who claim it change the subject when asked what it is. Is spirituality a self constructed delusion like soul or God? Is spirituality simply paranioa - the 'feeling' god exists or the feeling the believer has a 'soul'? These are not rhetorical questions.

In discussion concerning superstition I keep in mind that those who believe in god are denialists. Denying reality, history, the nature of their superstition and denying the validity of their claims. Everything from the Bible to the existence of god and heaven is presented as an enigmatic mystery by Christians yet Christians will inform you of everything from what heaven is like to what god thinks. If anyone has actual proof of god to base their argument on Id love to hear it. Alas all that has been said in support of god and Christian validity so far is regurgitaed dungeons and dragons role playing. I understand that some people dont grow out of their monsters under the bed and teddy becomes Christ the saviour. Still no excuse to let religious beliefs spill into the real world into the public realm.

West, Oliver, BrainDrain.....

There is something generous and of value in offering a testimony to an experience, an encounter, an illumination of a thread of liberating knowledge, a new found peace and joy in a troubled life, or a new energy in a lethargic, comfortable life. Whether contributed by a learned professional or an enquiring man/woman without learned status, simply seeking truth and willing to pass it on in the spirit of collaboration in the great task of knowing. Whilst always willing to acknowledge that we may be wrong.

Contributions of accusatory bile delivered in peusdo intellectual language reflect sadly a hardened heart and soggy abusive intent oozing from perverse prejudice. Your hostility towards people of faith does you no credit.

Yebiga your latest contribution was interesting and in gratifying contrast to the aforementioned.

You conclude, "But make no mistake, secular humanism which balances the demands between the individual and community has powered all of mans' progress during the last 500 years. Its reassertion will make religion as we know it redundant.".

The flourishing of the individual has its roots in Christian thought underpinned by its theological exposition in Imago Dei. Our Western history is full of great individuals who stood up to civil and religious authority and the mob in response to religious mob control.

To me secular humanism has seen its time pass. Vale. Its action and consequences have acted, as have other events and movements preceding it over the last 2000 years, to enrich Christianity's deep soil in readiness for the further flourishing of faith more enlightened, aware and focussed. Indeed, its retreat will make religion as we know it redundant. Have you not got the gist of Sell's work?

Dear Boxgum,

I feel no hostility towards you or Sells. Just the sames, were I to provide counsel on swimming in the poluted waters of the sacred Ganges, I would recommend, don't.

When a guest in a Catholic church, I genuflect when passing crossing the altar and have worn a skull cap in a synogue and taken my shoes off in a temple. Respect for the situation. However, I suspect many potestant Christians would NOT do the same, herein, NOT showing respect to the beliefs of others.

--- Assuming you are a Protestant, do YOU genuflect in RC churches?

Please have a new look at the "How Does God Exist?" thread, it should be evident, I do not have specific religionists in my sights. Rather, I put it, one should draw on many bodies of knowledge, when assessing situations/beliefs: Sells does not do this, instead, he uses limited resources. He has a depth of knowledge, but seemingly not a breadth of knowledge. If he does have the latter, it is somehow suspended, regarding the study of religion.

Moreover, in a non-hypocritical manner, I have asked West to justify some claims. My last post, above.

"The rise of secular religion" has been "rising", since medieval times. The move from Eclasia to Dominations in Religion, as the notion of diminishing Church power was addressed.

Further, Sells STILL hasn't explained, why the attributes of a Christian are to be accepted for the Christian godhead but rejected as mythologies, elsewhere. This response doesn't fit. Surely, a REAL GOD would not copy the profile of mythical gods, when Its supreme purpose is to be known and have Its sacrafice known.

Lastly, "How Gods Exist," as an architecture is known. The Christian god is not differentiated. Pointing reality out is not "against" faithful, as such. It is History.

In this frame, this Forum presents the opportunity for knowledge discovery, reflection, refreshing re-evaluation and re-assessment.

We can all learn from critical re-assessments and from the broader canopy of knowledge, including Sells, you, West, BD, Relda et al. The Game is not to become arrested by preconceptions.

It's counter-religious to listen to Christians whinging about secularism since Jesus first brought it about. Jesus didn't name his ministry of faith and social caring. Jesus we are told, brought people in as a teacher (12 apostles)to send them out to educate others so they in turn could go out into their world and behave as (inclusionist) taught by Jesus. Jesus was about empowering the little guy dominated by the jewish exclusionist. Christianity used Jesus to spread it's message. Christianity is not an extension of Jesus's ministry. When Peter asked to build his church Jesus gave very explicit instructions as to the foundations of that church. The Christian Churches have not honoured that explicit instruction. Of course the early church never imagined that the masses would ever aquire the ability to read or articulate much beyond basic animal husbandry. The Christian Churches well knew their inclusion of some aspects of pagan belief and ritual in the name of appeasement and religious conversion. They were willing to trade principle and belief for power and governance. Jesus fought institutions because he saw them to be corrupted or corruptable to mans needs not for Gods.

YngNLuvnIt, Good observation. The problem with some readers is they take the word of what is written without research on facts presented.

Chapter 19:27 And now about these enemies of mine who didn't want me to be their king-bring them in and execute them right here in my presence.

These are sentences within the story and are referenced 1-48, so there are Forty seven other sentences that make up the moral of the story.

19:27 was a sentence relating to a story he told listener as he was nearing Jerusalem.

He said to them that the Kingdom of heaven would not be created over night as there was much change needed.

And began to tell a story about a nobleman who was crowned a King ina far land.

The story is headed the "ten servants" in which ten servants were given gold and silver to invest for him while he was gone.

But his people hated him and sent a delegation after him to say they did not want him to be their king.

Upon his return for those servants who worked hard to invest and make money for him were rewarded with Governing positions, for those who did nothing, they received nothing.

And so then we get to 19:27.

It doesn't finish there, only another 21 sentences, whereby he has a triumphant entry into Jerusalem, Weeps over Jerusalem, clears the temple only to find out that other religious law and other leaders of the people began planning how to kill him.

Luke 19:48 But they could think of nothing, because all the people hung on every word he said.

Myths are "stories about divine beings, generally arranged in a coherent system; they are revered as true and sacred; (emphasis on TRUE) they are endorsed by rulers and priests; and closely linked to religion. Once this link is broken, and the actors in the story are not regarded as gods but as human heroes, giants or fairies, it is no longer a myth but a folktale. Where the central actor is divine but the story is trivial ... the result is religious legend, not myth." [J. Simpson & S. Roud, "Dictionary of English Folklore," Oxford, 2000, p.254]

BrainDrain please pay more attention to verbs. Myths are according to your source "revered" as true. So for some they are true and for others they are not true. The meaning of myth in the more special sense of the word is much more complex than Simpson / Roud’s meaning. Please consider.

According to G.S. Kirk in Myth: Its Meanings and Functions in Ancient and Other Cultures : a myth’s action is complicated; the central character tends to behave differently; the family relationships are noted; they are attached to a particular region; the story does not rely on disguises and tricks; it relies on the unpredictable reactions of individuals, personalities rather than types; a distinguishing characteristic of myth is their free-ranging and often paradoxical fantasy (this is , for Kirk, a quality that sets many traditional tales apart from those that specialise in neatness and a kind of logic); the curious lack of ordinary logic operates quite apart from the consequence of the supernatural components which both apply in myths and folktales, however, in folktales one event leads naturally to another (given the initial assumptions, for example, that one speaking character may be an animal); in myths the supernatural component often produces drastic and unexpected changes in the forward movement of the action; also Kirk says that “myths tend to possess that element of ‘seriousness’’’, establishing and confirming rights and institutions or exploring and reflecting problems or preoccupations …” This is an important aspect in relation to Jesus and the New testament. (cont.)

Myths also, for Kirk, often have main characters that are superhuman, gods or semi-divine heroes, or animals who turn into culture heroes in the era of human and cultural creation; myths often are usually placed in a timeless past whereas, folktales are said to have taken place in a historical time –in the past but not the distant or primeval past; Kirk says that folktales use of “once upon a time” implies historical time rather than creation or the first of men or the golden age. The Bible, I think, has enough elements and components that - if we don’t see it as a true account- it can be referred to as a myth.

Kirk says that there is mobility from one genre to another especially from folktale into myth. Kirk points out that the Perseus story is a myth with strong folktale components. I think that that the gist of a myth is true is quiet reasonable position to take - even though the components that make up that myth are false.

So for Kirk: “Myths often have some serious underlying purpose beyond that of telling a story. Folktales, on the hand, tend to reflect on simple social situations; they play on ordinary fears and an desires as well as on men’s appreciation of neat and ingenious solutions; and they introduce fantastic subjects more to widen the range of adventure and acumen than through any imaginative or introspective urge. Both genres are to different degrees controlled by the laws of story telling, which operate more prominently – more crudely, perhaps – in folktales than in myths. In practice … the two often overlap, and that argues for keeping ‘myth’ and ‘mythology’ as inclusive terms, both for myths in the more special sense and for folktales.”

Oliver we still admit the Iliad is attributed to Homer but nobody would state categorically that that is the fact. We will never know who really wrote the Iliad unless we find cross references. The Bible (both old and new testaments) are a different story as for most of the authors are very well known. We also have the history of the Bibles evolution and can pin point when God was invented, what people believed before hand. The Bible is written as if it is existed in a vacuum but unfortunately for the cult of Judaism and spin off hybrids such as Christianity and Islam and their assertions is they are a product of two backwater states amongst superpowers that kept records and existed long before god. There is no question that the Bible is fiction the Bible is most certainly fiction.

Boxgum Christians in this thread and everywhere do not understand what fact or reality is. Christianity and its entire phantasmagoria are occult superstition. It is far too absurd to expect normal people to believe in such nonsense as Jesus and God. The fact is they are myth. Quoting the Bible is akin to quoting Harry Potter, it means nothing outside of those who indulge in the dungeons and dragons game of Harry Potter. Christians here and elsewhere prove their complete disrespect for everybody when they make their offensive, arrogant and childish Christian beliefs public.

Boxgum believe what you want, Indulge in the childish game playing that religion is but keep it to yourself. Your superstition is your problem not the worlds.

Oliver Religion on the factual level is based on deceit and manipulation. On the psychological level religion is based on superstition and immaturity. For instance the misogynistic nature of most religion especially monotheism where by the spiritual mind is that of emotional immaturity as to not be capable to see the factual existence of a female but woman is a not to be trusted parody of a sinful being. This is Christians cant see that their beliefs are just as ridiculous as any other religious beliefs.

Wells,

Thanks for your reply. Suspect we have read the same or similar sources have drawn like conclusions.

My last post was not so much about Homer (as an author). If we DO have have documents of Pilate's trials, and there is nothing there, then, it is GAME, SET AND RUBBER. If we have a huge volume of general documentation from the period, BUT, NOT TRIAL TRANSCRIPTS, then, we have only a "good reason" to believe in the non-existence of a historical Jesus (or whomever).

You see Pilate at the time had had a history of massacres in his past and in his career was in a "be on your best behaviour" phase. The Hedrodians were Roman puppets not genealogically endorsed leaders. Moreover, IF there was a Palm Sunday incident like, with crowds, Pilate would likely to have acted to avert a roit. Thinking of his own political neck, if he had to use force. A postulate that would have to be disguarded, IF actual diaries do not attest you it. If the diaries do not it exist, the postulate may be tentatively, in my case, as a degrared heuristic.

Pilot, was not a very significant figure. Today's equivalent. Hmmm. Oliver North. Jesus, or, whomever, if he existed as some kind of antagonist against the Hedodrodians. Hmmm. Monica Lewinski... A nobody in the frame of a historical person.

Religionist fabrications aside, I think there is value in knowing how religionism works, the archeticture of Gods, and knowing, if some characters are invented or lived, but with fallacious accretions affixed.

Boxgum and Sells,

You need to learn more understanding of your fellow human. Humanists don't burn people at the stake, for disagreeing with them.

Sells,

Did God the Father, beget God the Son? Is murder/self-murder wrong? Is suicide sinful? Is it wrong to commit suicide, as a gesture of atonement?

Even, if one were born without "original" sin and lived a perfect life, but, next, sets oneself's with special sin, as one last sinful act, would that action dirty the slate?

Also, please answer my earlier question.

O.

Oliver from my perspective if there is no evidence that Jesus existed then he is irrelevant to the claim that he is the messiah or god or was even a carpenter or had crossed paths with Pilate or Herod. If there is no evidence that Jesus existed which there is not then everything about Jesus is no more than wild posturing.

I understand your point and refer you to the story of Job. Job was a lawyer who was recorded in the Law of David (later the Hebrew Bible). Job said it did not matter if a person led a good life or a bad life it would not be of divine consequence. That is the good may live a miserable life, suffer an illness for years and die young in pain and the bad could a happy high life of success and die old in their sleep. Job basically claimed there was no such thing as divine Justice.

When Ben Sira rewote the law of David to turn it into an occult work to appease waring sides during an era of sectarian violence he rewrote Jobs observations as the book of Job.
Job existed, he and his work were recorded by himself as well as others who knew him or his work. Yet the fact that Job existed does not make Job in the Book of Job real. Ben Sira invented a character in the book of Job, both Jobs are mutually irrelevant to each other. If we had reference to riots on palm Sunday and a person called Jesus was some how involved in it that person is still not the god that is claimed, just as the real Job was not the character tested by god.

The claim is to be held independent of a casual relationship and must stand on its own merits. I cannot accept the claim of Lord of the Rings fans that Middle Earth exists on the basis that the Earth has a geographic middle. For this reason history cannot be used to support the validity of the Bible.

Dear Boxgum,
My reading of History, sees the advent of Christianity as mans' greatest disaster. The evidence for this intrepretation is so overwhelming that the need to eloborate is quiet tiresome.

Neverthless, If we look at technological advances alone; we clearly see that progress only occurs when the church releases its grip on ideas. The parallel growth of secular thought and technological progress is astonishing. This leads one to the uncomfortable conclusion that the Christian god is clearly a luddite.

After the Ottoman conquest of Byzantium, the great pagan literature of ancient greece and rome is smuggled into Italy. What had been lost, destroyed or buried is returned to the human soul. What follows is the modern era: the renassiance, the reformation, the enlightenment, the age of reason, the industrial revolution, Darwin, the technological revolution.

Unfortunately, we no longer teach our own history in general education; and even where we do, its often from some perverse perspective; fashion, womens rights, marxism, military advancement. Indeed, any perspective but the battle of ideas.

I harp on this because there is a clear continuous line from our ancient pagan literature to secular modernism. Christianity is the ogre, or in Hegels' terms the antithesis. It is like humanity decided to put the village idiot in charge. The village idiot then pillages the best of the ancient texts, destroys them, and what he remembers becomes divine inspiration and the sum total of mans' knowledge.

So whats the problem? Well its - relativity and post modernism. (see my previous post) This i maintain has stalled the advance of secular humanism and caused a minor backlash following 9/11. It has given the remnants of religion false hope and more than a little despair for the liberal intellectuals. But there is no going back - we now know there are an infinite number of planets in the universe - each is teeming with life. In this reality, Jesus goes the way of humpty dumpty.

I am used to vitriol in this comments section but it seems to have reached a new height (or is that depth) for this article. I suspect I have hit a nerve. My opponents are used to making easy shots at the faith, they are not used to the battle being taken up to them and all of their precious presuppositions being challenged. While we might have a civilized discussion about what Jesus being the son of God means, these people want to deny him even his historical existence, such is their fear. It is like year one on the French revolution or of Pol Pot’s regime, the past must be erased because it is far too troublesome.

There must be a creeping suspicion that something is wrong as secular humanism cuts its grim swath through the culture leaving only degradation behind. As culture grows thinner they must feel the cold of the universe against their bare backsides and wonder what the future will bring. None of them are serious about discussion, all they want is abuse. Oliver’s pathetic demands that I answer his questions that do not bear answering is a sign of desperation. There is indeed a desperation in this as indicated by the extremes of logic they are prepared to entertain against all of the evidence. I will continue to answer posts that presuppose that I have something interesting to say and ignore those that are pure bias. Who would have thought that secular humanists could be so irrational!

Sells come down off your cross. Just because you are thoroughly invested in the religion that promotes Jesus as a God does not mean that those who do not agree that Jesus is a God are therefore Godless. Not everyone who believes in God are religionist nor are they theologically barren for not being religionist. A lot has changed over last 2500 years try and keep up. Your forebarers of "the one and only true God" charged across the globe demanding conversion, the adoption of belief as well as governance. And the other religion of "the one and only true God" followed suit 800 years later. And the war continues inspite of science and historical fact. And 3000 years later all three religions of the "one and only true God" are still exclusionist

West,

"The fact that Job existed does not make Job in the Book of Job real." True, but, from my perspective, it would be helpful to know, if there is historical person/composite. Americans tend to "spin" their assassinated presidents in a like manner. Make the typical, great.

As you say, examination shows the OT and the NT be rewrites, re-positioning gods and borrowings. Trading myths is well known, eben primitive clans traded myths, say creation myths. Interestingly, some of the food taboos were pragatically complementary, so some animal species were presevered.

Again thanks for the Job facts. Didn't know that one.

Bushgum,

History is history.

Peter must be living in some remote playpen of the mind but if it is possible for him to escape from his world of theological babble and look objectively he may find that societies which have largely discarded religion are not hotbeds of sin and iniquity, but are often highly functional, safe and prosperous. Just seems that the more secular democracies all enjoy good social conditions never seen before in human history. In contrast no highly religious nation enjoys high levels of social health and indeed one can say where religion goes you guessed it ...... you get trubble.

Trubble like .... in the US of A, for example, where the most religious and strongly Christian states are a basket case with high homicide, juvenile and adult mortality, STD infections, abortion, teen pregnancy, and throw into the mix primitive gun laws and you see serious societal dysfunction.

ps
YEBIGA, I must say that was a very well put, clear understanding ......Particularly agree with ... "The religious create and sustain immovable myths to awe and ensnare; to bend reality to a predetermined and inflexible narrative. The comfort this generates empowers the adherent with a fantastic disingenuity."

........ which approximates our Peter.

Sells a temper tantrum? You have opponents? A tad dramatic if you ask me but I guess the cult of Christianity is a cult of exclusion and thus everybody else and all of nature is the Christians enemy in the mind of a Christian. If so it is bad for you as you were defeated before you started.

You had no case. Your assertion of god as your base requires you have knowledge of the god that you claim. To assert god to exist on any level requires an intimate knowledge of that god which only god could deliver in person with gods own undeniable proofs. That is that even if a god did appear he has to prove he is god. That god also has to prove all his claims are also true and then clarify them in no uncertain terms. Such intimate knowledge requires an in-depth exchange and experience of proof previous to your claim.

All you have done is make the same claims children make when they speak of pretend friends – ‘Don’t sit there you will sit on god’. Worst still you demonstrate you don’t even have understanding of your own prejudices. You are using the internet a product of science to say across a nation that ignorance and backwardness creates a better world than secularism. Even god can’t go further than the skull of the believer. Science trumps god again. Worst again you have to use untruths to push your case.

All along it is you speaking, speaking from the ego, that’s why you throw the tantrum. God has not disagreed with secularism; god is a no show, null and void. You are left just regurgitating your fantasies and horrifically expecting others to march to your dictates.

"There must be a creeping suspicion that something is wrong as secular humanism cuts its grim swath through the culture leaving only degradation behind. As culture grows thinner they must feel the cold of the universe against their bare backsides and wonder what the future will bring"

I've heard that old chestnut before, as Xtians worry as to what
will happen without their moral guidance etc. Fact is that we
could introduce school subjects such as morality, ethics, philosophy,
etc tomorrow, if the godsquad did not object and insist that it
has to be preached in conjuction with the "jesus loves you,or you
will burn in hell" etc story. Whilst Xtianity insists that only
it should rule about what is ethical or moral, we have a problem.

"HOW DOES GOD EXIST?" -OR- “THE SILENCE OF THE SELLS"

For Sells (1),

Peter, I can't see how open questions and my gentle critic of "a priori" assessment can be seen "bias". Bias means presenting predisposition.

Given (a) YOU have a chance to answer open questions and (b) my recommending the triangulation of disciplines on topics, it seems, I exhibit a newer, stranger form of bias. Better let the lexicographers know.

Moreover, YOU acknowledged “other” gods having the same characteristics (as the Trinity) to be myths. But, the Christian Trinity looks and quacks like a mythical duck. Why? The ball has been in your court for days.

For Sells (2),

--BACKGROUND--

The OT recognises El Elyon as the Head of the Canaanite Baal. In the OT, Yahweh was accepted by the gods, s, as, elohim,, a [indefinite article] son of El Eylon. In Pslam 82, we read: Yahweh took the stand at the Council, [anthromorphic, but that’s another story], "to deliver judgements among the gods, s. [plural]..."

Various Christian denominations since have avoided the gods, s, aspect, herein, supplanting gods with angels, majesty, tribal elders and pagan divinities. Here, it is not typically recognised, the Hebrews initially were henotheists (polythieists with a tribal god)
and Yahweh was merely a tribal god.

-- "TRINITY IN OT" -OR- "DRIVING THREE HOLIES IN ONE - VOl. 1" --

Sells, please answer this question. If you don't; just think about it:

Is the ousia of the Father one substance (homoousion), as in the Grand-Father (El Elyon). Do the three hypostates of the Trinity, also exist for El Elyon? Did El Elyon beget Yahweh, a God, having God the Father, as an hypostatis? Are there three hypostates existing, for EACH (divine) generation's ousia? If pneuma/spirutus is an hypostatis of God, in the Father's Father (and Brothers); How can this divine family, mock justice, "undermining the very basis of human society" [Psalm 82], and remain moral divinities? Or, is the Holy Spirit fallible?

[Psalm 82., Trans. Bowker, in Armstrong 1993]

Yabby,
What a wonderful suggestion: teach ethics, character, philosophy in schools. I had always thought we should, but of course the religions would jump up and down. Although, there is nothing to stop the state schools.

Oliver,
That is very funny but it is no way to argue - it is so unfair! You had me in stitches. Who do you think you are submitting the word of god to examination: highlighting inconsistencies, diefied plurals, angelic fractions, heathen exponents and pagan infinities? But where was the logos of it all?

John Lennon once said: "it is all dick" but once you get past dick - perhaps it is all Plato.

The only way to teach values in School is to teach law, teach kids that there are consequences to action. Sex education teaches more and better weighed values than religion as sex education teaches consequences to action. Teach manners and that will construct social cultural consequences to action. Science too informs real consequences to real actions and so is a far better way to teach good values than religion.

Spirituality is a politically correct word for self obbsession. How could a belief in a deity so emotionally immature as to need to be worshipped and only save those that stroke its ego hold any good value whatsoever? Even if it did keep people behaving good (and it most certainly does not)false motive will only lead to counter revolution and people will misbehave.

The mumbo Jumbo of jesus or allah only teach disrespect. Halali for instance preached the morality of womens dress but in my street women dont wear hats or other head coverings to prevent god being turned on and so far the street has been living in peace and prosperity. Yet now in Bande Ache women are being beaten if they do not cover their head and are blamed for the tsunami.

Yebiga,

Logos, The Word of God's historical engagement ebbs and flows and ebbs again. The word of Sells flows and ebbs only. But, to be fair, God has had longer to work on His technique.

West,

In your 'REAL' world of truth/rationalism where does the imaginary/irrational fit?

And before you jump in with your personal bias, please consider the difference between a 'real' and 'complex' number. Do you live in a real world or a complex one? (or one almost entirely of your own bias/creation?)

I share your belief than much of mankind perverts organised religion into something to be avoided by rational people (I follow no recognised 'Religion' or attend a Church because of this belief) but i see the fault existing in the fallible mind of 'religious' men who fail to teach accurately the concept of each person's unique link to God, rather than the 'concept' itself.

You fault the concept, I, the participants. Like i said, you cannot say the 'religion' of Mathematics has no value merely because many people stuff-up their arithmetic, division, etc. Yet because you choose to remain blind to your own spirituality (it is there once you take the time to look) you say others who experience it for themselves are mistaken because it cannot exist. Why am i delusional/paranoid for believing I, and all life, contains a sptirtual component, but you are apparently not delusional for denying that you possess such?

Spirituality is as real in our complex world as the imaginary component of a complex number is in our REAL world, yet try to prove the imaginary part exists in terms of 'real' numbers and you will be faced with a similar dificulty. What exactly is the square root of minus one? Is it a finite 'real' number? Can you 'rationalise' an irrational number as easily as you dismiss the 'irrational' thought of God??

Keiran,
As a disbeliever in the infinite and absolute origin points in our Universe... I say the absolute origin 'point' of Pi is the (left-hand) digit 3. Why don't you prove your side of the argument/point by telling me what the last digit is, since clearly Pi cannot be infinite as it is simply an irrational number (circumference of any circle divided by it's diameter) not a 'relative' process? (excuse cross-thread post).

"The only way to teach values in School is to teach law, teach kids that there are consequences to action. Sex education teaches more and better weighed values than religion as sex education teaches consequences to action."

West, thats all very nice, but then there is a whole can of
worms there, as to why we behave as we do, which can take
us into the philosophical and ethical, without religion being
the driving force.

Do you only not kill your neighbour, not rape his wife or not
steal his belongings, because of the legal consequences?
What about the notion that as a community, its alot more
pleasant to live and benefits us all, if we cooperate, rather
then plunder each other and our respective possessions?

To cut it short, we can show that morality and ethics evolved
in various social species, as there was a benefit for those
who cooperated and lived in harmony as a community.

There is more to morality and ethics then just the law.

pi can not be expressed as a number and I will eat three of them to prove my point. :-)
It seems to me that religion places more emphasis on our existing to benefit God rather than God existing to benefit us. While any theologian worth his salt can argue any religious text inside out, the lay person is left to (faithful)acceptance and alone to struggle with the natural spiritual law that resides in every man and how that "spiritual sense" argues religion.
For the lay person religion is a debt, it's conformity. Where spiritualism is a more independent expression of connection and thanks with out programmed ritual.
Religion is staid, regimented, official, dogmatic and ritualistic. Spiritualism is like the spirit. Free flowing, self-expression unhindered by rules or boundaries.
Maybe the religions of the world could use a little more spiritualism and a little less of the need to be always right and in control.

Braindrain in the real world the irrational/imaginary belong in the privacy of the individual mind with the exception where it is packaged as a commodity for entertainment purposes and it is clear that it is fiction.

Religious beliefs are forms of neuroticism which should be medically treated but as it as critical mass as smoking reached or 19th century China use. There is a strong religious lobby protecting its right to deceive and manipulate to grow.

The imaginary is not real and a healthy mind can tell the difference between real and imaginary.

The belief in God is the cause of the perversion of religion as god does not exist and so every single piece of information concerning god is complete and total fiction ordered to mislead the emotionally vulnerable into believing. You say you share my belief than much of mankind perverts organised religion into something to be avoided by rational people but you are sharing in the great con because you are publicly espousing the deceitful assertion of the existence of god without proof of your claims previous to your assertions.

Spirituality or religion or superstition by any name is a game like dungeons and dragons. I have no concern with grown men playing with electric train sets in the privacy of their own homes. Indeed yes in their imagination the trains and model villages are real. Christians are people who try and claim those trains and villages are real and then seek to interfere with the lives of others based on their chji9ldish imagination. Without absolute proof of god and total proof any god is exactly what Christians (or any other superstitious cult) claim then Christians are wrong to do so and should if they are moral people keep a low profile and cease to use the public sphere as their playroom.

“A real world or a complex one?” Such a statement is nought but sloganism. Could you explain how the real ( not your imagined) world is not complex?

Yabby philosophy is only ideology and pointless to teach unless we teach children ALL ideology equally.

aqvarivs

Religion is the external practice of a faith.

In that sense I am religious.

Such faith should have a depth of resources as gift ( scripture, ritual, practice, revelations through saints-exemplar ) to illuminate a path toward the interior when the person of faith is readied for it.. The spiritual is of the interior journey.

In that sense I am spiritual.

Such readiness can be imposed through a response to a life tragedy, or can flow from a response to a moral life challenge, or I suppose through a natural sense of gratefulness for love encountered. It is a listening to the call "to come follow me", though heard often before.

The interior journey is where the seed finds rich soil to give forth new growth - the rich humaniser. It is also the place of the Dark Night of the Soul which is tough territory. This journey is unique to each living being. Each person's journey is as authentic as the other in the context of one's life situation.

Faith in Jesus, the Incarnate One, as the Son of God is understandably an offense to reason, as Kierkegaard expressed in his term the Absolute Paradox. Yet it is a position of faith which is a starting point. Many stay there as religious adherents.

Jesus's claim, I am the Way, the Truth and the Life, whether from his mouth or of his emerging Church finding meaning in Him, makes for a specific route in one's interior journey to the God relationship. Take it or leave it. You can only take it from an informed position. Be it from the vast archival and teaching resources of the Vatican to feed the intellect or a simple scripture related story at a mission in the jungle.

St Augustine talked of the need for a balance of the personal, the intellectual and the institutional in one's spiritual development and exercise. I think one not balanced with the others leads to a comfort zone of a mix of religiosity, intellectualism, dogmatism, and ignorance.

Thankyou Boxgum for demonstrating spirituality is an obsession of ones own ego and religion is a game akin to Dungeons and Dragons.

boxgum. I don't deny you your religion however you wish to express your definition of faith. I do deny that you, your religion, or any other faith/religion has an inherent right to place your/their beliefs above mine in value or to influence law or "moral society". It is not the right of Judaism or Christianity or Islam to place their religion above the safety and welfare of society nor is it a right to battle for religious dominance using the general public as pawns in a super- religious cultural war. If you have something honest to offer society in a free world the people will come to you. If your found to be corrupt in the execution of your belief you will be judged by your congress. I have nothing against religion in itself. I do have something against those who abuse religion. Who weaponize religion. I will talk down any religion that uses it's social influence in an attempt to govern society. I'm reminded of Jesus saying something that(paraphrase) God will sooner listen to the prayers of a man from with in a closet than those from with in the finest church.
Jesus didn't think religion was that important. He encouraged individuals to open their own channels.

I was dismayed to read Peter blaming the Holocaust on secular religion. This delusion has its roots firmly in the creationist ideologies of the religious right (although evolution is the main culprit there) and should never go unanswered when aired publicly.

What makes it so obscene is the apparent dismissal by Peter of 1900 years of Christian anti-semeticism as a culminating impetus for the horrors committed by the Nazi regime.

Just as the knights of the first crusade, on their way to the Holy Land, detoured and used their military might to conduct wholesale slaughter of Jewish communities along the Rhine so did the essentially Christian nation of Germany express entrenched European hatred of the Jewish race last century.

The planes that bombed the ghettos were emblazoned with the cross as were the trucks and trains that transported millions to the gas chambers, indeed the highest military award of this army was the iron cross. All of this met by a wall of silence from the Vatican.

Maybe Peter, with due reflection, might indulge in an admirable Christian virtue by confessing the sins of his faith and asking forgiveness for the error of its ways.

West
'Could you explain how the real (not your imagined) world is not complex? '

I would rather you expanded your biased mind and learned the difference yourself. Have you even looked up just what a complex number is?

I use the analogy of real/complex numbers to clearly show you the difference, but equal validity, between what you see as 'neurotic imagination' and the real 'rational' world where proof is required before something can be believed in.

There is no such 'real' number as the sqare root of minus One and yet this value is of actual use and value in the 'real' world of complex numbers, allowing a new set of solutions for algebraic equations that represent our world's 'hard' 'unimaginary' evidence. One in which such 'imaginary' numbers have a 'real' validity even though their existance cannot be proven. So it is with Spirituality - it exists within us as humans and yet is incapable of 'proof' such as you require before you can 'believe' or have any faith in. (the proof exists for you if and only if you believe in it). How can you 'prove' your belief to one who will not believe in you or look with intelligence, instead of bias, at your 'theory's?

You show your own participation in the 'con' when you deny that God exists because you seem to only conceive of 'God' as some human-like supernatural being that 'needs' us to worship him as the organised religionists have let the less discriminating choose to believe out of their inability to think and discuss to the extent you and i can today. I hold no such fantasy as you seem quite willing (without proof other than 2+2=3) to believe/declare I have. You seem unable to allow for anything that cannot 'fit' inside your mind, as if your mind is the ultimate arbiter of what is and is not 'real'. It might be to you but you declare your truth has to be true for all others and anyone who thinks differently must be mentally ill in your restricted opinion.
(cont.)

Imagination is a vital tool to the intellect. This is not to say that elves and fairies are 'real' (at least not to me in the sense 'common' knowledge currently accepts) You possess a useful imagination (Einstein could not have devised his theories of Relativity without being able to imagine himself riding a beam of light) - do not deny the ability to similarly accept your spirituality, but use your current knowledge to deny for yourself ONLY that which truly and correctly holds false or no value and see that which is capable of benefit to you. (eg 'loving' your neighbour as yourself, do unto others...)

'Thankyou Boxgum for demonstrating spirituality is an obsession of ones own ego and religion is a game akin to Dungeons and Dragons. '

That is real 'sloganism' and is a sign you are getting desperate. Boxgum and you both deserve better of you.

Pi IS an irrational (real, not complex) number, which can only be accurately expressed, in real number, terms by an infinitely long string of digits that Aqvarivs could not eat but the merest slice before he died of old age. How little we truly know. The most accurate calculation of Pi to date is a little over 1 billion digits long (Guiness book of world records) suggesting to me that the true value is in fact, irrational and infinite. I submit this means viewing the real world as simply one of reality (that which can be expressed in terms already proven) remains a poor approximation.
The imaginary exists, how 'real' it is or whether it can/should be proven in the real world remains open (to me).

I believe it's use shouldn't be denied out of hand.

Merry Spiritual (insert your religion here)Mas everyone! Season's Greetings to you all:-) Presumably West and the anti-religion brigade have no reason to consider this a time to make symbolic effort to send goodwill and the giving of gifts and spreading of that un'proven' imaginary artifact of the mind of Man - Love - to all? Or is there a little hypocrite in all of us?

csteele.
Granted the long history of anti-Semitism in Europe was a disgrace to Christians whose Lord was a Jew. I think what the Nazis did was to provoke a nationalistic Christianity and use old enmities to stir up residual anti Semitism. National Socialism was certainly a secular religion and the German church it evoked took its eyes off the One who modeled nonviolent resistance for us. There were faithful Christians who stood apart form the German church whose god was the fatherland and German culture and many lost their lives as a result. As far as the Vatican is concerned I think the situation was much more complex that the pope just ignoring what was happening.

csteele.

Agree. Seclarism has been evolved from the middle ages until into 1800s. Since the twentieth century, there has been some of a rebound in religionism. The Jews have been slaughted by Christians for centuries, including ethnic cleansing to remove debts owed by Christians.

If one types-in "Humanist" plus "Massacre" into a search engine, well, very uninteresting. Type in Christian + Massacre and the screen lights like ChrisMas' tree (ahem). The practice of Christianity has been the antithesis of having an "unconditional positive regard for humanity" and life. Christianty's pages are filled with death, slavery, torments and torture. Humanism empathy and compassion.

The Christians have killed others, as readily as the National Socialists(True Sells, read history), but, have been endured from one slaughter to the next

Boxgum,

Thank you for your post.

I tend think of spiritablity, as an attractor of religion. A bit like a negative charge attracting a positively charged response. An internalisor, rather nor internal. A penchant towards spiralism, perhaps, creates a need state. which relion satisfies. Culture, society, family and life experinece will determine which religion is selcted. Hence, someone, who is spiral in the West, is inclined towards the Christian godhead, the Middle East, Islam, etc, etc , etc.

There seems to be a push-pull factor: Spirituaity pulls and religion is pushed?

Methinks primitive religions were more spirital and Earthly. The spirity of the tree, rock or lake. More developed mythologies seem to be institutional responses to similar needs, but, less Earthly, now, heavens and hells. In-between, we have tall mountains and under-worlds ;-). Of the aforementioned instutitional responses, I would posit, are churches and priesthoods.

Of the above, we have an interplay between ourselves (dispositions) and the environment (subject to manipulations): A willingness to believe and a capacity to be manipulated by a satsfying agent. A dry sponge on a wet surface, the Wet (religion) is drawn to meet a need

West,
I know the following from Rupert Sheldrake, British Biologist and author, is likely to lie well outside your realm and will be delegated to the garbage bin of the ‘unreal’, "Descartes believed the only kind of mind was the conscious mind. Then Freud reinvented the unconscious. Then Jung said it's not just a personal unconscious but a collective unconscious. Morphic resonance shows us that our very souls are connected with those of others and bound up with the world around us." I belong to the Church of England," he says. He talks about his beliefs, and he buys the whole thing - Father, Son, Holy Ghost. Rupert Sheldrake is only a heretic in the Church of Science.

I’ve listened also to the scientific mind of Bohm who has a view where, inasmuch as mathematics is meaning and meaning is a property of consciousness, the scientist is ultimately, like the mystic, studying consciousness. "In some ways the pure mathematician is going into one of the aspects of consciousness."

Apparent is the certain ego, perhaps foolishly maintaining that no consciousness can exist outside of his own. His memory resides only within ‘self’ and bears no relation to any ‘outer’ consciousness or memory.

Sheldrake is one of the few contemporary scientists who maintain that such a survival of something beyond the body is possible on the ground that it is possible for memory to exist without the support of the brain. (And David Bohm concurs with him on this possibility.) Sheldrake argues that just because we do not know of any memory without the brain, it does not follow that there cannot be any memory outside the brain. I hear the sceptic reply “Impossible!” simply because he cannot see it nor will believe it. No longer is it a question of logic (or logos) for inevitably and ultimately, its direction is certain belief. A simple statement for many is sufficient, “God is real”.

Sorry braindrain but pi is expressed as 3.14159...
if I eat 3 pi no longer exist.
Pi is not expressed as 0.14159...
0.14159... would be equivalent to the crumbs left on the pie plate. I leave them for you. Too bad in your rush to be right you missed the subtle truth and my play at humour.

Relda Sheldrake is not a neurological researcher and his idea is not based on anything other than aimless supposition. There is nothing wrong with that except it should not be taken seriously. I am not suggesting he should be denied testing his hypotheses just his conclusions are without merit.

Apparently many get upset at the fact I reject deceit. I have no problem that people fool themselves into believing in all sorts of things wether little green men , fairies or Jesus. It makes no difference but there is an odd imperative that everybody else must be fooled also.

There is something deeper psychological going on, something like an ego version of an ingrown toe nail as the more faith a person holds the less grasp of reality and lower ability to respect and empathise with others.

I personally have never heard or have been told of an argument that substantiates god. Theologians , anti secularist extremists, the claimants of righteousness all base their arguments and claims on a denial of reality, a slandering of the other and avoidance of answering the question of focus. No offence intended but what you offer is reasoning by personality cult. A scientist is not infallible; a scientist is just as vulnerable to a mental failure as the next person. A scientist’s opinion is no substitute for science.

Many Christians do not understand this and spend their lives throwing stones at Darwin for example with no idea of the irrelevance of their activities to evolution.

Other examples is Australian Charismatic’s’ blaming Bill Clinton for the worlds ills with no idea of the irrelevance of their activities to the biology of bird flu or politics of terrorism.

Wishing god is real or occult magic spells calling on god to be real through simple statements do not make god real.
Without complete and undeniable proof of god and his nature all that is attributed god comes from fantasy and ego.

BrainDrain you must prove your god to exist and that he is all you say he is otherwise your post is nothing other than you indulging in fantasy. Without undeniable proof of God you have not got a case to argue. Without undeniable proof of god previous to your claim there is no point in you saying anything about it. Without undeniable proof of god previous to your claim you must not expect to be taken seriously.

Even the Roswell conspiracy theorists know they need proof to support such fantastic claims.

You should also rethink your attack that I when I look at stars I dont see your fantasies it does not help your argument. Go and collect undeniable proof and let me know when you have something real and honest to present.

Peter in his strange article says ..."We miss the point that the peaceable kingdom can only be brought about under the tutelage of the one who is both creator and redeemer." If we are to seriously believe Peter here then stock-still in his mindset is this belief in a top shelf creator and redeemer from whom all else in existence derives.

We cannot miss the point that this is indicative of the theological, deductive mindset in the first place.

We cannot miss the point that it also explains the disenchantment ........ which should be levelled at his teddy's poor tutelage through "simply believe, and it will be so".

BUT ....

My question for Peter is if as a theologian and scientist you believed that a certain effect had no material cause, would you then ever be motivated or capable enough to find a cause?

ps
Should be as easy as Pi. lol

Aqvarivs,

'pi can not be expressed as a number and I will eat three of them to prove my point. :-)'

I can assure you your humour was not lost on me, I did chuckle at your wit.

You are also right - I do rush to be right but you are wrong if you believed i missed the subtlty or the joke.

Two problems: one yours, one mine. Mine was your use of the term 'them' in your joke, leading me initially to believe you meant 3 pi's, indicating your great appetite, instead of the 3 OF (A) pi you intended indicating your actual point. Yours was in not following the context correctly (perhaps due to my cross-post with Keiran to whom my comment was clearly directed and for which i apologised).

I was using Pi as evidence that the infinite does exist in the real world as something (an irrational number of single fixed value) other than a relative 'process' which Keiran had previously claimed it only could be to me on another thread. A True Pi (one with all it's 'crumbs' present), while being greater than 3 and less than 4 is infinite (logically proving that infinity can be 'smaller' than four!).' Eating' the 3 still leaves an infinitely long 'number' of crumbs which i declare to be impossible to ever fully consume, or express, (as opposed to morphing into a 'smaller' infinite by removing the left hand digit(s) ) in one man's lifetime. (Man can however conceptualise Pi relatively easily) I also claimed the 3 as MY starting point and asking Kieran what his 'endpoint' (digit) was, thus denying you the right to eat 'my' 3 Pi :-) He still has not responded to date.

I like and agree with a lot (not all) of the rest of your posts. Maybe it's because i am a fellow Aquarian and am able to think more outside the box?

I always thought mathematicians rounded pi to 3.14159... because any further reduction had no baring on recreating the whole. I read some where that a computer has been tasked to explore the idea of a final decimal point for pi and has to date exceeded the one millionth decimal place. It's become a religion. The ghost that came full circle and yet continues ad infinitum. :-)
I think that the study of the idea God or the supernatural is relative to mans understanding of man. And if particular branching of that study develop and compete as ideology. Fine. Theorist and scientist compete for recognition all the time. I'd like to say no harm no foul but it hasn't been always the case. Theorist and scientist have led us astray. In their defense I will say that theory and science have an element of self correction. If it's not reasonable it has no life. Religion on the other hand tends to dig in and fortify in the face of reason and demand that religion can not be held to the same standard because it has been handed down by God and God does not need to be reasonable.
I have to say that that frightens me. Too many "believers" are not reasonable men and all religions being equal have proven that down through the ages. It isn't that science has replaced religion. It is that science has reached such a level that religion can now destroy all mankind in the name of God with a simple flick of the switch. Our only assurance is that we are to have faith in them. Praying to God takes on a whole new meaning. Like Stockholm Syndrome.

Brainy, over the years I've had an interest in Pi for a number of reasons but I come back to my original thoughts that it is not a number but simply an infinite process. Does that make sense? Mathematicians may call it otherwise ... e.g. an irrational number or an infinite number or an infinite or a transcendental number. I suppose there is a need to call it something BUT my point is that it is never a number but simply a process of infinite, non-repeating, decimal expansion. You cannot catch an infinite even with some transcendental butterfly net. lol

Now what about an infinite regression ........ ?

Better still what about Martin Armstrong's Economic Pi Cycle for some reading?
http://www.contrahour.com/contrahour/2006/06/martin_armstron.html

Relda,

Although your citing Sheldrake was of surprised to the Forum my dog tells me, she knew in advance. In the area of "consciousness" theories on quantum fields have been suggested, Penrose and Hameroff.
With Freud, he thought his models metaphors, which science with its better understanding of the brain would breakdown to what, we, today, call neurology. Sigmund and Anna were in the psychoanlytic school. As you probably known, Jung took a more universal approach. Herein, perhaps, Freud saw his work more of a rough diamond; whereas, Jung might have felt his discriptions were more permanent and less allegorical.

With the latter, perhaps, his Models were held closer to the underlying latent constructs? Some diagrams I have seen developed by Aguirree (UC, Santa Cruz) and Penrose(?) do show a portion of the non-reduced waveform outside of the barriers containing the larger (but entire) waveform for a potential particle.

The problem with the idea of quantum teleopathy would be, if that is your posit, would be one of scale., I think. While the wave forms might all somehow be joined at the tiniest level, reduction of the wave (normalisation) to perform in a brain and between on large scale, I suspect would be problematic. The message would have the coded from cosmological scale to quantum scale, routed effectively, then translated from quanta to the decoded thoughts for the receiver. If it all happened at a quantum level, I don't think we could articulate those happens in our world.

Grenfield has offered comment on religion and mystism, noting evidence of imagination back to Cro Magnon (40K years ago; Sells, some would not agree with 4004 BCE). Imagination, she sees, in consort with the ability to apprehend non-physical entities; wherein, childen play imagine, and adults are capable of representational thought (Piaget).

Moreover, Greenfield feels connections can be made between imagination and external cues, engendering supernumerary beliefs. In this frame, Mithen maintains this paired capacity, important for high cognitive capacities of our species.

...

Hey, it's time you pi eaters got back on track. You are so crusty.

Peter quotes Michael Casey :”( Secular) Democratic political religion … It is directed to the modification of human nature and society rather than to the revolutionary regeneration of humanity, and pursues its ends where possible through judicial and administrative coercion and more generally through capturing the “commanding heights” of the culture. The attitude to traditional religion ... is hostile.”

Secular Religious (SR) Tribunals ( Gender, Race, Sexuality, Employment....) comprise the secular bishops sans crook and staff who sit from on high to decree that certain human behaviour is off limits and out of bounds. Any such transgression is seen, not as a wrongful, uncharitable act by an individual towards another, but rather as an aberration of human behaviour that can be educated out of the person. And it sometimes works through fear of legal penalty or job retention/advancement opportunity.

However, the underlying "wrongfulness" still resides in the depths of the person.

What's missing is the recognition by the perpetrator of the wrong done, and a desire to change such behaviour.

The modern culture avoids the language of right and wrong... it becomes personalised..."I stuffed up... I did it because it was cool at the time...I had no intention in ... happening, I was just having fun.". Yet stealing, personal abuse, aggression, using someone else's property without approval...are simply wrongful acts.

SR lacks proportion and is seen its Tribunalese where vulgar, ignorant insensitivity to another's race and colour is termed racist; the same term used to describe the evil practice of Apartheid.

SR tribunals see such behaviour as human aberrations.. "this behaviour offends our higher (public) values...how disgusting... it is an embarrassment to our human ideals".

Rather than seek personal change as a reconciliation process engaging one's moral and spiritual senses, our SR Tribunals gain comfort in their condemnations.

Next case please.

And keep up the salary and conditions. And of course we need statistics to shore up the next budget presentation.

Bring on the perpetrators, we need you, you awful little people.

...

But, Greenfield, adds a darker side, to our supremo ability to create internal imagination + external pairings; religion. However, according to Greenfield, Mithen truncates the process before its more developed stage, adding, there is exists greater capacity to think beyond, "magic and superstition", to achieve "wisdom and understanding".

Because religious imaginary models involve tacit (imaginary)beliefs and explicit external reinforcement, we have a problem, because tacit knowledge and explicit knowledge are held coefficient (Polanyi). Herein, religionists and rationalists, we interpret the same evidence differently, based on, either imaginings or overt evidence testing.

Infinities and Perfect Forms,

Infities are funny things. The [set of all possible irrational numbers] is greater than the [set of all possible rational numbers], yet both sets are infinite. That is, some infinities are greater than others.

Folk whom study the historical growth of science and technology in civilizations, some times use the understanding of pi, as measure of development. Herein, one such measure is the ability to articulate the upper and lower limits of pi.

A perfect circle is a highly conceptual idea, maybe, beyond Plato's perfect forms? Herein, can one actually, think a perfect circle? The formation of the circle in our minds is drawn in space-time. Would not that create a spiral [if represented by a 3D tranformation]?

West,
Darwinian theory has offered some insight into an explanation of our existence, where taken dogmatically, it too becomes as religious doctrine. If we can treat religion as an organism organizing human behaviour we are not dealing with mental weakness, but rather "the healthy functioning of the biologically and culturally well-adapted human mind." (DARWIN'S CATHEDRAL: EVOLUTION, RELIGION, AND THE NATURE OF SOCIETY - David Sloan)

Sceptics who focus on and scorn religious "hocus-pocus" are missing the point. Religious belief is not detached from reality: It is about motivating behavior and should be studied as such. Rationality is not the key to this healthy functioning; adaptation is the key. Evolution is about trade-offs in which becoming better in some respects requires becoming worse in others. There is a trade-off with factual knowledge because in itself factual knowledge is not enough to motivate "adaptive behaviour." At times a symbolic belief system that departs from factual reality can motivate people much better than a limited perception of a seemingly harsh reality. As Boxgum has suggested, an education in the facts alone present mere superficiality.

One can view religion as giving us a backdrop; the mind could be a tabula rasa, a "blank tablet," no more than a bathtub full of silicon chips could be a digital computer. Perceptual input must be processed, i.e. recognized, or it would just be noise "less even than a dream" or "nothing to us". Kant alternatively puts it, "What is first given to us is appearance. When combined with consciousness [Bewußtsein], it is called perception [Wahrnehmung]". Religion should not give us a literal truth but more, a true perception from which we can differentiate the noise.

A spiral represents our movement toward greater Wahrnehmung, which is entirely dependant on our Bewußtsein – it is perhaps the perfect symbol, a powerful vortex within nature herself.

Relda I disagree with you. Religion requires a disconnection with reality as it has to polarise the individual. To fetishise the stars or shadows, mirror images and unusual occurrences with intelligence requires intense self polarisation so that ones own ego is projected into everything. There is nothing psychologically healthy about believing in god and certainly the need for god is telling of a mind that is in crisis. Smoking helps smokers get through tough times but it is not beneficial. Spend time in a church and one is hard pressed to find anybody who is not in a down ward spiral turning mole hills into mountains. Indeed the more religious the smaller the mole hill becomes an increasingly bigger mountain.

Wether or not the belief in magic and supernatural teddies filled with personality is good for the believer is not the point. I only include it because like everything else Christians say the benefits of their cult or that Christianity is good or moral simply are not true. The point is those who believe in god and that others should believe too are harmful and destructive to other people. As is obvious by this thread the only way Christians can rule is by ethnically cleansing the rest of society. They just don’t want to understand that their beliefs are unacceptable and most of their beliefs are incredibly offensive to people they try to force their superstition on. Christianity can’t handle criticism or accept the fact it is almost an ideology of hypocrisy ringing true the saying that truth is the enemy of god.

In total truth Christian beliefs are mumbo jumbo, they are occult superstition and it requires proof of god previous to the claim for those beliefs not to be occult superstition. I find it curious to take issue with that initially the indigenous land rights claim for Coronation Hill were fogged off by (Christian) critics as unjustified as mumbo jumbo as they were not Christian. Why is the foreign tribal belief of Christianity more important and more real than a local belief.

West

Why aren't you out on a Saturday night having a good time? ( I've just arrived home..)

Your rants are tiresome, unbelievably ignorant of history and human understanding and absolutely self indulgent. You really are a sad case

Poor old Darwin-talk about shoot the messenger. As you point out Relda Christians have been attempting to vilify the poor man since they lost the debate. Darwin has been proved right and there is no serious debate arguing against evolution with the exception of fringe lunatics. I thank you too because bringing up Darwin is demonstrating ‘truth is the enemy of god’ for why else do Christians despise the man so intensely. Darwin was not alone and within decades an army of naturalists would have been saying the exact same things as Darwin if he had been struck by lightening.

To deny evolution is to deny genes. To deny the environmental impact on genes is to deny nature. To argue intelligent design or creationism is to deny the environment and the natural.

Evolution is no longer theory it is a principle which has led us to other principles. We have discovered genetics and the relationship between the environmental and biological. None of the three could be completely understood without the other. Darwin has been proved to be a very clever person and if you had read his work you will find he never said his theory was explicit. To be honest it doesn’t matter as he was/is right.

Evolutionary principle has assisted us in the fight against cancer. In its most famous case led scientists to trace Feline AIDS to link with Simian AIDS which has mutated to humans. Many cat species had been wiped out by Feline AIDS and the surviving species are mostly immune. This gives understanding of the immune gene.

Most modern medicine is influenced by genetic research and I defy you next time you are seriously ill to pray instead of seeking medicine which owes its existence in part to Darwin.

In short you are calling pharmacists and Doctors fundamentalists in the religion of medicine. So what? The reality in the end remains that evolution is real and Christianity is based on untruths to put it politely.

Religion takes credit for bringing about the positive aspects of human nature, while blaming human nature for the negative aspects of religion.
Secularism does not advocate the abolishment of Church. Secularism advocates that religion not be integrated into the public affairs of society. In all my searching I have yet to find a definition for the word amalgamation secular religion. I can not find the colour white black either.

"And yet a few years ago, egged on by an avowed Atheist, voluntary prayer was banned in our schools. Have we let some among us make Atheism a religion and impose that religion on those of us who believe in our Judeo-Christian traditions?
"There is a fundamental difference between separation of church and state and denying the spiritual heritage of this country. Inscribed on the Jefferson Memorial in Washington, D.C. are Jefferson’s words, 'The God who gave us life gave us liberty —can the liberties of a Nation be secure when we have removed a conviction that these liberties are the gift of God.'"
"Our coins bear the words 'In God We Trust.' We take the oath of office asking his help in keeping that oath. And we proclaim that we are a Nation under God when we pledge allegiance to the flag. But we can’t mention his name in a public school or even sing religious hymns that are non - denominational. Christians can be celebrated in the school room with pine trees, tinsel and reindeers but there must be no mention of the man whose birthday is being celebrated. One wonders how a teacher would answer if a student asked why it was called Christmas."
Ronald Reagan In a speech to The Young America's Foundation

I think we need balance in our social decision making. There is too much of the "throwing the baby out with the bathwater". I have my own issues with religion but, I also take issue with some aspects of "living for the now, tomorrow will take care of itself" propagated by some secularist.

Merry Christmas.
Jesus was a good man.

West,
If you are to disagree with me you should firstly at least understand what is being said. It is neither science nor the practise of modern medicine I’m critical of.

Whilst Darwin was still attending Cambridge, social power lay with a fat and established church, where a jail term existed for any hint of apostasy. The ‘isms’ of atheism, socialism, modernism and racism were about – with Fundamentalism just around the corner. Darwin was his own man and allowed himself none of these ‘isms’

One can only respect Darwin for having the courage to take on John Lightfoot, an Anglican clergyman and Hebrew scholar at Cambridge University, whose absurd tracing of Biblical genealogy calculated that the Earth was created on October 23, 4004 BC at 9 p.m.

For Darwin, evolution explained human racial and cultural differences. In one of his notes, he jotted: `more humble and I believe true to see man’ – savage and civilized man – `created from animals.’ Creation by evolution was a belief born of theological humility.

In private, he revealed that he no longer believed `in the Bible as a divine revelation, and therefore not in Jesus Christ as the Son of God.’ Yet his `belief in what is called a personal God,’ he said, had been as strong as a prelate’s when he wrote the Origin of Species; and three years before his death, he confessed that he had `never been an atheist, in the sense of denying the existence of a god …generally (& more & more as I grow older), but not always … agnostic would be the most correct description of my state of mind.’

Anyway..Happy Christmas (if that means anything)!

Relda,

"Religious belief is not detached from reality: It is about motivating behavior and should be studied as such"

... YES, AGREE, BUT motivation needs to be considered in context of learning and reinforcement schedules. The created reality is a response to internal (greenfireld) and external factors.

"Rationality is not the key to this healthy functioning; adaptation is the key."

... Suggest depends on the nature of adaptation in relation to the environment. Adaptation can be appropriate or can be inappropriate.

"Evolution is about trade-offs in which becoming better in some respects requires becoming worse in others."

... AGREE at a biological level. Religion, in the frame of anthopology, needs to be considered cultural. Culture can be held as a reponse to the ecology. Biological evolution sets parameters on culture, while cultures generally would change --witin parameters set-- more often than biological factors. Eg.. What civilzations and accompanying belief systems we adpot is limited by our brains, but, there is flexibility within that domain, ...sharmanism, polytheseism, hentheism (own tribal god superior), compromised (trinity) montheism (Christianity), monotheism (Islam) and secularism. [Maybe, I need to change my Internet name to Hegel ;-)]

There also seems to a "rough" parallel/civilizationsal development; primitive nomads (shrmans, animism), city-state (priesthoods, polytheism), tribes (tribal gods), countries( inter-religional wars, inter-denominational conflicts) and advanced natonal states (secularism) and globalisation (inter-relional wars, hetero-denomination unity against other religions, religions under pressure from secularism & response to the same)

All,

Seasons greetings

aqvarivs,

Feeding secularism to religionists, is like giving water to a person to much, and, there is a risk the patient (metaphorically) will die.

Franklin and Washington were pretty heavy into the Masons. There was a Masonic cerimony for the founding of the first White House (destroyed 1812). Today, if my friends are typical, Americans, even religionist Americans, accept the idea of the separation of Church and State. But, in its own sphere religionism is accepted valid. Tend to agree. I wouldn't want to deprive Sells of his Christmas Tree or private beliefs about Jesus, Moses and the crew. He can even believe that Adam and Eve were contemporaneous with the dinosaurs in 4004 BCE. It is a right. It Sells' right. But, it is a puzzlement, just the same.

I only wish Sells would be more rational in assessing how gods come to exist (known to anthropology), before making his claims to the public domain.

He knows the history/rules, but suspends its application, to his religion. A bit like saying, yes, ..2,4,6,10,12.. are even numbers, but my special number "8", is not, it is whatever, I say it is. In this Forum, saying he would only discuss narrow topics like the nature of Jesus as god, is a little like the young person, who will play THEIR favourite game. One can't ignore what is known the creation of gods, when assess, "how god exists" and "the rise of secular religion". What abot Mohammed who says, "8" is an even number, but, "10" is what I say it is. We need Sally to point out Pete and Moh, all even numbers are even numbers. Still hear those ducks quacking ;-).

typo:

Feeding secularism to religionists, is like giving water TO a THIRSTY person TOO much, and, there is a risk the patient (metaphorically) will die

Relda please do not take anything I say as an attack nor offence. Bottom line I don’t care what anybody believes as long as they don’t let it interfere with others. I don’t care if my neighbours are Christians or Cannibals as long as they don’t bible bash or eat other people.

I merely pointed out that when Darwin is brought into debate by Christians they present two environmental fallacies. The first is personality cult based in which a person especially a scientist becoming superstitious means a god exists. The other also based on the personality cult is that somehow if a scientist is discredited then the discovered phenomenon is discredited.

I do understand why they do it. Christians have no argument to support their beliefs and their back is up against the wall. The basis of their beliefs is fiction which is set in concrete by history. This thread is concerned with the Christian lust for power to dominate and control all people, to destroy liberty, freedom and justice all of which Christian philosophy is at polar opposites with. This too has been proved by history. Christians when arguing to support their claims have to resort to dishonesty. Wether motivated from malice or ignorance the result will always be the same as we have seen the blue prints from the tyranny of Christian Europe, the Taliban , Iran and now Iraq to name a very few examples.

I was unaware that Darwin died burdened with superstition, I know the quote you gave but could you please direct to me where he wrote that he “never been an atheist, in the sense of denying the existence of a god “. It would be interesting to see if he did indeed write that or wether it is a case of urban myth such as Bertrand Russell’s alleged death bed conversion to Christ. I ask not because I don’t believe you but I find the Christian personality cult interesting.

May you and all
Have a wonderful Xmas/ Saturnalia/ Koronia / Sacaia / festival of Mead or whatever agri-tradition your tribe celebrate :)

West

Relda was not taking offence. She was simply calling you a goose (to use the vernacular) for not taking care to what is being written and going off on a tangent in reply.

I observe much of your abuse is based on the “fact” that Christians think the world is only 4000 years old and it was made in 7 days.
Now for some news. Not all Christians reject Darwin’s Theory of Evolution..

You need to understand there are Christian denominations with deep roots in human history and search for knowledge and truth with solid scientific heritage.

And there are many noisy others who are Bible literalists ranging from Evangelicals of mainstream Churches to the plethora of Reform and new Pentecostal churches. I may stand corrected here.

I am a Catholic and I stand comfortably with the theory of evolution, and indeed that of the Big Bang. Can I pass on a quote from a theological meditation from the International Theological Commission in the Vatican, signed of by Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI) in 2003?

64: “Pope John Paul II stated some years ago that “new knowledge leads to the recognition of the theory of evolution as more than a hypothesis. It is indeed remarkable that this theory has been progressively accepted by researchers following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge”(“Message to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences on Evolution”1996). ……. Mainly concerned with evolution as it “involves the question of man,” however, Pope John Paul’s message is specifically critical of materialistic theories of human origins and insists on the relevance of philosophy and theology for an adequate understanding of the “ontological leap” to the human which cannot be explained in purely scientific terms……. The implication of these remarks is that theories of evolution and of the origin of the universe possess particular theological interest when they touch on the doctrines of the creation ex nihilo and the creation of man in the image of God.

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20040723_communion-stewardship_en.html

Take some time out and have a read. The question still is: are we of God, or not?

Boxgum,

1. Do you maintain Papal infallibility in matter ex cathedra?
2. Is the Bible infallible, as interpreted by Man?
3. Or do you see the Pope as one like the whom wants to understand,
can make mistakes, even on "religious" topics?
4. Where the Protestant wrong to break with the Universal Church?
5. Whom can justly establish a religion cum denomination?

Some religionists [e.g., Alsan from another thread] are "convinced" the world is only 6,000 years old. When astophysical evidence is introduced to suggest otherwise; it is proposed that our region of space is a special zone, where the laws applying elsewhere in the universe are suspended.

Cheers,

O.

Er..Boxgum,
You were basically correct in one of your assumptions… however, on the other, I’m a ‘he’ :), despite an effeminate sounding pseudonym.

I think you’ll probably appreciate the following, "the indisposable person is self-preoccupied, encumbered, self-enclosed, incapable of giving himself, of opening up, of giving out. If he listens to me, he gives me only his ear, the outward attitude, but he refuses me himself, for he cannot 'make room' for anyone else in himself."
- Kierkegaard

West,
Much of the reference material I’ve used has come from a lecture given by Dr James Moore on Darwin – a “Devil’s Chaplain”? (Richard Dawkins thanked Dr Moore for his erudite talk, “worthy of Darwin himself”). A myth was promulgated from the spurious account of Lady Hope on Darwin’s supposed deathbed conversion to Christianity – her story is considered highly unlikely. Those who believe it are likely to be grasping at straws.

To totally infiltrate the mind, the doubts and beliefs of another – especially from another time is nigh impossible. Ultimately, we will form our own beliefs from the particular perspective and intuition we have at our own disposal. We can only give ‘witness’ to what we find.

Relda thankyou for the direction.

Boxgum I think your personal insults and attacks toward me are unfounded. Your beliefs are immature, ignorant and ridiculously simplistic but more so your beliefs are your personal fantasy and have no grounding in reality what so ever. You cannot present a real god so you rely on abuse. However your attitude demonstrates that Christian beliefs have no place in the public realm and belongs solely in childish clubs such as churches, bible book clubs or within the privacy of your personal playrooms.

The “fact” is you are wrong because what you say requires proof before you allege your deities of occult superstition. The question is not are we of god or not? For that is a most inane question as is are we of Middle Earth or are we of Star Trek? The question is how far should we tolerate Christians and their dark age superstition or can ‘all’ Christians be trusted to keep their beliefs to themselves?

What Pope John Paul II has to say is totally meaningless to me for I am not superstitious and I am not involved in the occult society of Catholicism. I regard popes as irrelevant figures in debates concerning reality although I also recognise popes influence vulnerable people who are involved in the occult. Pope John Paul II proved himself to be an immoral person of the calibre of Hitler and Stalin as John Paul II was as responsible for as much death and suffering by using his influence (although out of dark age ignorance) to prevent safe sex and so spread AIDs through Africa.

Indeed the current Pope no better by assisting what is in effect the persecution of rape victims in Nicaragua and the murder of Nicaraguan women who need abortions.

Pope John Paul II was not god and his words are not the words of a god. When you judge me it is you Boxgum , not a god. No words of a pope can justify your position.

Aqvarivs,Keiran,

I had hoped my comment concerning Pi was able to show all that something incredibly simple (simple fractions such as 1/3, circ/diam (Pi), 6/7 (days of 'creation'. NB: I am NOT a Creationist!)) can easily result in something infinitely BIG (try writing down the exact decimal value of 1/3 without using the accepted 'shorthand' form).

I do understand the idea of an 'infinite process' for Pi AQ, but the idea was to express the infinite within the simple/observable/easily expressable. Follow me?

I can say with exact certainty that the value of Pi is 'between-3-and-4'. I can increase the accuracy of my statement by using 3.1 and 3.2 as 'limits' and still more by using 3.14 and 3.15 etc. ad infinitum. (process). If i had the computing power and the time to waste i could write the exact value of Pi in a single number, or at least the most accurate (and ginormously long) approximation ever attempted.

The point is: Science gives 'everyman' a number of 'proveable' ideas but that within and between those 'provable', 'real' values are an infinite number of values that science cannot 'define' perfectly and that 'everyman' either cannot understand or has only an imperfect approximation of.

There are many things that science is currently incapable of proving yet those like West will not believe in something unless scientific 'standards' are able to be used to determine it's intrinsic value in some 'provable' (repeatable) way.

Many here are far too willing to denounce as having NO REAL value that which has only been 'shown' to them by those with poor and imperfect understanding.

How well would science stand up to similar 'investigation' if only those who imperfectly understand the principle's are ever listened to/quoted as being The Authority on the subject, as Religion so often is by detractors?

Religion tries to reach out to everyman/woman in a way THEY can understand whether they can read, write or speak above a pre-school level. Science remains unattainably elitist for most of mankind even if adherents think it can 'reach' such by being 'explainable'.(depending upon the explainor/explainee).

" Religion tries to reach out to everyman/woman in a way THEY can understand whether they can read, write or speak above a pre-school level. Science remains unattainably elitist for most of mankind even if adherents think it can 'reach' such by being 'explainable'.(depending upon the explainor/explainee). "

Braindrain you have just described the assertions of the Taliban.

Those who say they are religious believe in a god. They have never come eye to eye with said god. They have never had confirmation that any information they claim of that god. They have no true evidence let alone proof of that god. They don’t even know if their wild baseless guess that their god exists was right and he did exist that it would be an honest god. To put it simply even if the bible was true the believer does not know if god is the creator or Satan. To put it another way if Jehovah actually existed the believer does not know if Jehovah is a liar and a loud mouth and the moss rock on mars created the universe. It is all nothing but baseless conjecture and fantasy. No true god has ever been claimed by anybody ever. Worst still the con-men in history have convinced people that immoral codes of exclusionism, persecution and prejudice such as found in the Bible and Quran are somehow good. People are also belittled into trying to grasp the irrational Mumbo Jumbo of somebody else’s fantasy. Explaining the unexplainable such as Intelligent design, immortality and ‘miracles’ in vacuums.

What you believe Braindrain is your personal belief, no two beliefs in god are exactly the same. God is your personal fantasy; god is what you make up, what you want to believe. You have a right to believe what you want as long as it does not harm other people. Religion certainly harms others because it puts personal beliefs before others. You have a right to believe what you want but you do not have a right to try and con others to live by your beliefs. Cont.

For a public belief in god to hold credibility and justify any sort of religious value god then requires to be proved. God must be proved before you speak of him because proof is a presentation of truth. Without proof you have no truth, you have no real information to share, all you have is your fantasy about a god. Science has to satisfy that same requirement; simply coming up with a theory does not make it true, nor is it accepted as truth. You talk of intrinsic divinity, then where is it if not only in your mind, your point of view? Religion is not honest about its history, its origins or the sources of its information, nor is it honest about the validity and credibility of its information. Religion is presented with truth. When was the last time a pastor said the heathen was going to hell because he likes to think so, because he is prejudiced? When was the last time a minister quoted the Bible and said of course it is only a book and its fiction and we must keep that in mind? Religion is not honest, it’s a con game.

Braindrain you believe in god and obviously you believe everybody else should too and just as bad you believe people should live by your values. You have no truth, no proof of god to support it. Why should you be taken seriously, why should others live as you dictate? From my point of view your prejudices are obvious, your beliefs are foolish, your religion immoral. Your beliefs would be harmful to people I love. Why should I accept your assertion that I must be as you are? Why must many sacrifice themselves for you to appease what you have no truths to believe in?

Go and chant to the air. Evoke your god through the magical spells of prayer. Eat symbolic products. Please do not burden others by trying to convince them of your beliefs. Let your god speak for himself.

"God must be proved before you speak of him because proof is a presentation of truth." - West

I would tend to adopt an even stricter method. One needs to sequentially ask:

1. Where does it all come from?
2. Was/Were the universe/multiverses created or have always been?
3a. If created, expain?
3b. If uncreated, explain
4a. If created by a God(s), what is a God?, A real God or devised God? i.e., real or a virtual creation
4b. If physical, what are the physics?

Discussion on "How does God(s) exist" and theism versus secularism need to consider sider first causes, first ;-). We need know, when did Gods come to exist?

Debate is likely to divide into the natural versus the supernatural:

-- If NOT supernatural entities, then, we need to study physics and mathematics and undiscovered(?) sceinces to explain the creation of the universe or multiverses. Herein, theology remains instructive and valuable under the umbrella of antropology, history and helpful cross-disciplinary metaphors: e.g., design and organisation... POLE ONE.

--If supernatural entities are how do we KNOW, Moses contacted, "The" Creator? If Jesus calls from the Cross how we KNOW he communicated with God, and not some deceiptive substitute? If Mohammed "made contact", how do we KNOW (a) it was with God and (b) Islamic verbalisations are from god, not a substitute... POLE TWO.

--IF WE ADOPT A PHYSICAL POLE--

The correct state of affairs leaves rationalists on the front-foot searching for more complete explanations. Religionists are on the back-foot.

Sells- like Vatican astronomers refuse look through Galileo’s telescope... I can't look for what I might see, they think. Like, Sells, best stay in the cave. Forget about seeing the mountain! (Confucius).

The problem for Vatican astronomers was NOT simply seeing the moons orbiting Jupiter. Rather, acknowledging Jupiter has moons, creates a "physical" system, having Jupiter NOT Earth at its centre. Thus, challenging theism at its very core. Today, theocrasia under anthropology, civilisational studies and history challenges theism by exposing religion, as a human contrivance. History repeats. Sells can’t look.

Today, we have a good idea of the architecture of a physically created solar system AND have a good idea of the architecture human created religions. Herein, humans created all knowledge about God, moons DO orbit Jupiter, dinosaurs DID lived millions of years before humans. Believe systems are tilled. Scientific secularism provides a brave, questioning world.

--IF WE ADOPT A SUPERNATURAL POLE--

BEFORE one can argue that Gods, Holy Ghosts and Angels exist, one first must accept the supernatural.

But, the rub is, if the physical world is contact with the supernatural, how do we know we are in contact with God? Or, indeed, the supernatural has a God? Could be a deceptive entity, a mischievous elf, of sorts.

Can the religions PROVE contact with God over a mischievous elf; even, if there is a supernatural realm? Hmmm?

-- The prophets retort, “they [spirits] said so”! My bush, cloud, wall or tongue, said, “I am”. But, how do we KNOW so? My bush, cloud, wall or tongue, said, “I am”.

-- The churches cite the Holy Scriptures! Holy? Did you say, Holy? How do we know these scriptures are Holy? The churches, retort, The Holy Scriptures say so! But, how do we know, what the Holy Scriptures say IS holy? The Holy Scriptures say so!

-- “Like a circle within a circle. Like a wheel within a wheel…” – Windmills of the Mind

Oliver,
Your questions barely scratch the surface. Perhaps dig a little deeper. Look at the fundamental dichotomy as reflected in the philosophies of Kant, Blake, Hegel, Tillich, Schopenhauer, Buber, and Sartre.

Modern science suggests that the conscious and unconscious each possess the very characteristics necessary for them to perfectly reproduce the millennia-old afterlife scenarios of Eastern and Western traditions, but only if they divided apart at death. The ‘truth’ as expressed by the ancients is as relevant as ever. The Gnostics viewed man's inner being as bipartite in nature, differentiated into two entirely different elements - soul and spirit.

A "Reunion of the Two" is a common theme in the Gnostic scriptures. But instead of always calling them "soul and spirit" or "Adam and Eve", we can portray the two in terms very reminiscent of science's "conscious and unconscious". Yahweh Elohim forms us from the dust of the ground and breathes the breath of life into us, and we become living souls (Genesis 2:7).

Remember the dichtomony..."The word of God is living and active and sharper than any two-edged sword and cuts so deeply it divides the soul from the spirit." - Hebrews 4:12

Relda,

"Modern science suggests that the conscious and unconscious each possess the very characteristics necessary for them to perfectly reproduce the millennia-old afterlife scenarios of Eastern and Western traditions, but only if they divided apart at death."

Sounds interesting. Would you please elaborate? The Brain is very complex, of course, and, runs a multitude of systems. People like the Hopi indians use drugs to induce transcendental states in life.

Have read Kant, Blake, Hegel and Satre. Not Tillich and Schopenhauer.

Valid investigation into the creation its subsequents, I posit, involves several dichonomies, and synthises too. Something like a decision tree on its side, with branches and convergenences over time. Will don't start with gods, but, maybe we consider divinities along the way [Accept/Reject]. Even a creator need not be a god [universe in a laboratory]

Feel the physical/nature versus supernatural poles need to be addressed early on.

Religionism and the scientific leagacies of Newtonian mechanics, don't/won't see the full picture. Herein, the thought processes, which permit religion are interesting in themselves and are too slowly be adopted by science.

Otherwise put, there maybe no gods but one should visit systems and gestalts, and, see the limitations of reductionism. New approaches mathematics hopefully will be developed, e.g. Mandelbrot sets. Indian religions perhaps have some interesting concepts related to continuity, differernt to the Western and Byzantine traditions.

All,

We should all be fairly fluid in our mindsets, I suggest. There is value in apportioning probabilties to several posits at the same time, rather than being entrenched and overtly defensive to contrary evidence. Catch is, too often careers and identities are involved, and, the past commitment cannot readily be overturned. Herein, give me an open system to a closed system (Sells and Boxgum)anytime. Some might write an article each month, but not be prepared to discuss it.

Sells,

Surely, it is valid to address the achitecture of religion in the context of "How does God exit?" and "The rise of secularism religion". Your silence, is a puzzlement to me. But, if you can't you can't.

-- Best wishes for 2007,

O.

“Religionism and the scientific leagacies of Newtonian mechanics, don't/won't see the full picture.” – I agree. Heisenberg and Schrödinger have, in their revelation of the quantum realm, undermined a materialistic determinism that was once the basis for the Newtonian universe. As one crosses the border into the quantum realm, materialism evaporates.

Any ‘religion’ inclusive of this reality pierces the Newtonian world, a world veiled beneath the apparent reality of matter, determinism, naive objectivity, and separation.

On the consciousness/ subconsciousness dualism: Sigmund Freud and Carl Jung first introduced psychology's binary-mind hypothesis in the early 1900's. Whilst it was reluctantly accepted as valid by the scientific community for many decades, it was increasingly dismissed by later theorists, until, by the end of the 1970's, it was on the verge of being unceremoniously discarded altogether by modern scholarship. But then neuropsychology came along and provided substantiating objective evidence for what had previously been a purely subjective hypothesis. After applying the most rigorous tests possible, modern man has again arrived at the conclusion that we are indeed two-part creatures - that two entirely separate and distinct minds do indeed co-exist in the brain, one residing in the right hemisphere, and one in the left. This conclusion was first made public in the 1981 split-brain study Right Brain Left Brain, by Sally Springer and Georg Deutsch.

Considering science discovered the existence of the unconscious about 100 years ago and has been building temples to it ever since, this is pretty amazing evidence of the strength of the division in the human mind. Even after a whole century of confirming research, the average person still goes around in his life totally ignoring, discounting, or overlooking the fact that half of his own mind is AWOL, mistakenly assuming he is the uncompromised master of his own psychological domain. In reality, the average person is still hopelessly divided, half of his own being is utterly foreign to him.

The ancient religious concept that we all possess both 'head' and 'heart', soul and spirit has been reintroduced once by science the past century (Freud and Jung - analytical psychology)

Have always admired Freud, as a brilliant model builder. Given his era, he probably could do no more than than produce models. Freud's psychoanytical interpretations (e.g., Little Hans)seem to fall short against Skinner (operant conditioning) and Wolpe (systematic desentitisation, the latter two having experiment support. But the scientific backlash may have been too strong. Some good Freudian models were thrown out with the dirty bathwater. (Freud reminds me of the girl with the curl...)

In the 70s, Jung presented an all too mystical image, too much for the scientific community; A few fans in San Franscisco, perhaps. Even if Jung can be debunked, the notion in QM that not all the waveform is normalised, some outside the barriers (Penrose), loosely suggests collective quantum interconnectiveness. Albeit, personally I can't see it at a macro scale. Just the same, QM does have a pinch of Jung.

In physics, including QM and relativity,using time(t)as an operant is problemic. Time is a continuous. Integers are not. Work needsto happen here. Something less mechanical and maybe not fully formed?

Even though spirituality and mysticism may tend to be a bit iffy, the cognitive antecendents seem genuine and worthy of serious investigation. Relately, science should not dismiss the "processes" of religionism, when rejecting the actual religions.

If we had to process everything our brain does consciously, there would be gridlock, especially, if language needed to be reduced from thoughts.

We are only 6,000 years into a pattern of civilization, which might last a million years, herein, it is early days. Religion, as superstition, will hopefully wane, but, the processes underlying religion thought and the fundamental operants of the spirital mind might be captured by science, as QM and sunrise sciences develop non-mechanical, even non-reality-based approaches.

It's encouraging to read so many calls for proof.

Christianity claims to be an historical religion so it, quite rightly, lives or dies by its historicity.

Science is a wonderful tool of ours and to read demands for Christianity to scrutinised by such tools, strikes me as a completely rational and urgent one.

Those who aren't aware of the latest fruits of Biblical Criticism (Analysis) might be surprised to learn that the sceptical position regarding the historicity of the Bible is everywhere on the defensive.

The civilisation we all have roots in hasn't been one big pile of mistakes based on superstition. Our inheritance really is a treasure that’s been kept from us.

I hope the majority of us who know little about it can, like St Paul, let our fellow Aussies know what hope exists that really does belong to them.

Have listen
Dr. William Lane Craig California State University 2005

'Resurrection: Fact or Fiction'
http://www.veritas.org/3.0_media/talks/146

Also I think most of you will welcome

Dr. Ben Witherington's talk: Ohio State University 2005

Breaking the DaVinci Code: The Question of Jesus and Historical Truth
http://www.veritas.org/3.0_media/talks/412

about the historical claims of Dan Brown's "The Da Vinci Code".

The spirit I pick up from reading the posts is one of a refusal to be deceived. So in that spirit I offer the links above and hope they provide some delightful food for thought.

Regards,

Martin

Hope Sells' NY resolution is to write less and proselytize less, and be less aloof, when it comes to answering questions. That he engages in arguments and presents his case and/or answers alternative views. Debates. None of us know it all, but, TOGETHER, we can learn.

We all need to till our beliefs constantly. Not live in box, under a bed in locked room, inside a cave.

The questions I ask are valid, methinks:

- Christianity having the same theocrasia as mythologies, which even
Sells recognises. Why is Christianity and the Hebrew god
undifferentiated in pattern than other gods of the period still seen
to be the only "real" god. How does Mithras exist?

- The pantheon of El(the Grandfather)and the Trinity in the OT vis-a-vis the NT. Also matters of Logos (thank you West).

- How does anyone KNOW supernatural contact would be with God and not
a deceptive entity? Bull in the bullrushes?

Sells,

Be an Abelard or Luther not a closeted Vatican astronomer. Else, why do what you do?

This is a forum not a congregation.

As primates we see the world in confusing colour. If we were bats or dogs of submerged platypus we would see the world differently. If we were a rock formed of a of pluralistic amalgam of metals we would pick up static from the stars above and be completely unaware of them.

The complexity of the brain does not create god. There is no argument, no fact, no evidence, not a sniff in the universe to support the theory of god. All claims of god are based on wild and irrational supposition. Because it is irrational the believer attempts to justify said beliefs with sentimentality. Sentimentalities are based on personal preferences. What the believer wants to believe. This is why god is always a political belief.

Thank you Sells for such a controversial article that is of interest to so many people. You may be aware of me as a Christian who is normally willing to partake in these discussions. However properly entering a discussion that has 140 posts is not something I have time for. I don't currently intend to read either the article or the 140 posts but it is great however to see how interested people are in God. That has to be a good thing.

"The complexity of the brain does not create god." - West

True, not a real god, but, virtual gods and beliefs are created/learnt about in/by the brain and reinforced by the environment. The development/appreciation of such an advanced concept would require I suspect many proficient synapses.

In creating a virtual god neural networking would be involved. If the belief is strong presumably the network would be affixed and relatively permanent - the network in the religionist brain?

Rigid networking can also be observed in neurotic people, having obsessive thoughts, wherein, drugs can be used to break up the networks, SSRIs.

Maybe, if Sells popped a Prozac, we could coax him to discuss the Christian Jesus Christ vis~a~visa the history of theocrasia in anthropology. Surely, relevant to the "How does God exist" and religionism/secularism debates.

A more flexible brain would have a more, smaller networks, which are efficient and freer to question.

[ Yes, brains differ... Agree. Dolphins have a huge area of their brains dedicated to sonar. It is believed that they can hear in 3-D. So, yes, not all brains are created equal. Brains are the product of convergenet and divergent evolution. Also, like our bones, neural architecturies change thoughout our lives.]

The related dichonomy is the mind/brain divide. The extent to which our conscience thoughts can override more basic instincts. Freud came close with the Id (It), Superego and Ego, in days gone by.

I am certain that belief in God is not regarded delusional by psychologists, because so many people believe and that belief is reinforced by soceities. Some shinks can be religionist too. But, what concerns me is that if learning schedules in societally endorsed religionism, creates large highly affixed neural networks, the similar pattern of obsessive compulsive neurosis exists on a mass scale, in many brains. Hmm. I wonder

Whoa. What happened while I was away? Oliver, West guys c'mon. Do I have to take back what I said about the posts in here?

Oliver, could I posit that your "learning schedule" has created a "highly affixed neural network" that "mimicks the obsessive compulsive disorder" found in spaced out Trekkies! Sorry mate you asked for it.

You like psychological theories about belief I see,indulge me then:

Dedication to reality is more difficult in the short term if it challenges long nurtured world views. Hmm I wonder Oliver if in your neurosis (or inflexible neural architecturies) you're just not ready to be coaxed into truly facing the question. Who is Jesus?

You see how arguments like that work? They can be used in both directions. Much better to stick to the content of the person's claim.

Waxing on about esoteric topics might be gratifying but engaging with solid science will serve much better in the long run.Was not my link to the latest Biblical Criticism regarding the Resurrection not material to the debate?

Mind/brain links and all that are all well and good but solid peer reviewed academic research would ground your argument better.

To prevent people coming to the conclusion that you're using the 'Forum' as a platform for your fantastic ideas i.e to proselytise , could we deign to ask you to engage with the historical reliability of the Gospels? It would save you time by relativising your somewhat arcane theological questions; that is those answers will seem much less important. It would save you time also by, instead of begging the question as to the trustworthiness of the Bible, make you face the truly interesting question:

"Being one of the historic monotheistic religions it claims to be an historical religion, so it stands or falls on its historical claims. Therefore are these claims true?"

If you want to call Sells out about avoiding questions be warned: two can play at that game.

Peter's article as I read it simply perpetuates this ocean of frothing delusion where one increasingly sees more religious impediments to clear thinking.

I suppose we can say that programmed popes, pells and peters are clear evidence that the priest class is still in existence with ceaseless efforts denigrating anything secular. Now while a theologian like Peter may attempt to push a theological solution to some imagined and incomplete epistemology or the latest pope suggest that reason should be broadened to include the empirically unverifiable, we just get more of this faith-based religion promoting one of their grandest top shelf myths. i.e. that there is no secular basis for morality. In other words theft, killing of people and rape etc, can only really be wrong if there is a teddy (god) who says it is. Further it simply and clearly gives people bad reasons to behave well, when good reasons are actually available. LOL

The only self-evident fact of nature here is that this whole teddy milieu is a contrived and twisted unreason coupled with very powerful inducements on captive and vulnerable minds. It is a control system where the end product of this process is simply one of damaged goods rather than the true achievement of human potential. There is no thought of reason, humility, free inquiry, dignity, participatory democracy, in this systematic manipulation.

Popes, pells and peters with eyes and minds shut into their narrow dogma, will attack and seek to poison secular reason, for theirs is the world of the unreasonable.

ps
Personally, we "haven't seen any society in human history that ever suffered because its people became too reasonable."

Martin,

Neural networks: The notion of neural clusters is posited by neuroscientist and thinker, Susan Greenfield. There are pages of journal and university press citations in her book, “The Private life of the Brain”. The Mind and Brain dichotomy goes back to at least Descartes.

Large networks form in the brain and foster rigidity of thought. Say, if a friend dies a thought about that friend might hang-in there, hang-in there and hang-in there. People obsess. Same for some neuroses. Pharmaceuticals can break up the networks. The Prozac was tongue in cheek remark. I sure Sells is not neurotic.

We all probably have times when large neural clusters lead to minor obsessive behaviour. Rigidity is a sign.

Gospels: Many gospels do fit into history based on earlier lore teachings traditions, oral traditions and fabrications spanning c.50-150. Some reserachers claim an early Quelle document. Paul’s letters were also early, as was Mark, written c.80 in Southern Syria. It is hard to pick a start point for Christianity because it evolved. Personally, I think Hadrian renaming Jerusalem, Aelia Capitolina, and, exiling the Jews to places like Pella significant. Non-Jew Jews could get back-in to worship.

Terms: Resurrection, Bible, Jesus these terms are too specific, these terms assume a position. Is not better to see how the terms fit in with broader theocrasia. Study the forest not one tree. Sells see Christianity is but one tile in the mosaic.

Question: “Being one of the historic monotheistic religions…” Aten came from Egyptian panoply. Yes, we can discuss Akhenaten as a historical person and Thebes as an historical place. Did the Cult of Aten exist historically. I think, yes. Is there, except in a virtual sense, a God called Aten, I think, no.

Challenge: I am a little tired up with my own cultural research, which must take priority, but I am happy to work through say one question around a week, provided Sells reciprocates by answering mine at the rate. Maybe, I can develop my comment on Aten, answering your question.

O.

/cont.

Oliver once upon a time many people smoked, so many people smoked that it was socially acceptable. Somewhere in the deep dark vaults of my (virtual) memory I recall a voice advising people should smoke in moderation as chain smokers - the smoking extremists take the pleasure of the puff too literally , which is comparatively to the social norm –unhealthy. Meanwhile even for the moderate smoker lungs are filling with tar and not hard wiring for a life in an environment of perpetual virtual (metaphoric as opposed to imagined) bushfire.

Well said though Oliver, I have lent out my brain anatomy book but I recall there is mention of enlarged something or rather that deals with love, chocolate and spirituality, what ever the neurological geography it is there. I guess your question Oliver is this evolution (which would be deliciously ironic in the Christian case) or a case of brain damage? This part of the brain after all kills as the organism may addict to chocolate at heart disease and diabetes creating volumes. We could also blame it for 9/11 and the Oklahoma bombing not to mention an army of pathetic stalkers. The upside is the revenue generated by the celebrity cult.

Keiran I love your use of the term “teddy” to describe god. What a crazy etymology, Teddy Roosevelt animal exterminator to stuffed bear toy to stuffed bear toy fetishised with personality symbolic of god belief. The world would be a better place if the superstitious worshipped Whinny the Pooh instead of Jehovah/Allah. At least then the self claimed “spiritual” could live peacefully (and snugly) in secular society without the need for abuse and bombs.

West,

Suspect that in broad terms the evolved brain is flexible to meet the varied demands of its environent. If the ecology stimulates neural growth in one or another part of the living the living brain, guess it is a bit like watering this tree in the garden more than others. With obsessions large networks are built (Greenfield et al.)making it harder to be mentally nimble, as conditioned.

This is at a bit of tangent, but it may be relevant. There is case where a child had one of two eyes covered during a critical period of neurological development. Covered for some minor reason. Both eyes and peripherals were anatomically absolutely okay. What happened was the part of the brain responsiblee for one eye "took over" the part of the brain for both sides. The child was blind in one eye, because the brain did not recognise one eye. Point is, the brain attends to its environment and grows or does nor grow, accordingly.

Martin,

"Dedication to [A PERCEIVED] reality is more difficult in the short term if it challenges long nurtured world views." - Agree.

More so, in traditional societies. With a PERCEIVED reality all one can do is make a tentative commitment to that perceived reality, which will be "confirmed at some indeterminant time in the future" (Polanyi). That PERCEIVED reality can be held as a positive or negative heuristic, and, within reference groups, will be defended against external challenge (Lakatos). Just the same, the Sciences would contend that the PERCEIVED reality be testable and falsifiable.
The requirement for a Newtonian-style definite answer is now becoming less important, as realities blurr (e.g., QM).

A traditional society is more likely to leverage, say, classic writings than a New World society. Almost tautological cause-and-effect; being affixed because, it is affixed, or, progressive because, it is progressive.

Langsyne affinity is a societal axiom, I am presently developing for presentation to the academic community in the near future.

See, one can attempt answers.

Martin,

Trust the first week '07 is proving interesting and productive.

I am still very busy put still be able to look at this sight once a week.

In an earler post you mention than my questions are "arcane" to theology. This should make its easier for a theologian to answer my points. Herein, I my points are taken fron anthrolopy, history, behavioural science and the study of civilisatons. The interdisciplinary apprach draws a mozaic from Sumer (6,000 BCE) until now. To THOSE multi-disciplines Christianity is an object of study without emotional commitment, like analysing a soil sample. The Mosaic has a pattern, wherein, Christianity is a just a few tiles and the historical Jesus (if he did exist) was one tile (now discoloured) tile. Because of theocrasic borrowings from other religions Christainity IS NOT differentiated. There many tiles of the same colour and have silmilar discolourations. Sells, seems to recognise that a tile one readily substitiute for the Jesus/trinity tile/few tiles or from else where in the Mosaic, but, does not seem to see that this ability makes Christianity similar to those tiles.

You say as mentioned in the above context my several posts on arcane. These are not arcane to be me, given my limited knowledge, perhaps. For example, history states that the clans in Hebrew times were tribal that there were several tribal gods, say from the Canaanite Baal. That the tribal gods were the members of a Council. Moreover, the tribals tended to have their favoured god which they literally married (like Nuns in the RC church)have reproductive connonations for fertility, human and crop. Idolatory was workshipping an other tribe's god, and, was something akin to adultry. In a sense each god had its "chosen people". Yet, the OT, except for a few passages put a totally different spin on these relationships, first within the OT, and, between, the OT and NT. History states the

Cont...

[some loss because of the word limit]

Architecture states Yahweh was married to Asherah (Armstrong). This all does not fit with the OT and NT being infallible and complementary, nor, the nature of the godhead's divinity, nor, the unchanging nature of a perfect god.

Martin, if there are acceptable known answers to “arcane” questions, please explain;

" relationship of the divinity of the godhead as stated between the OT and NT, without dismissing* El and the NT Trinity, or, the Council of El being a Hebrew fabrication, 'because the BIBLE "does" say that (Psalm 82)' ".

-- *If one dismisses Psalm 82, it becomes the thin end of the wedge and that wedge cuts through the OT, NT, Nicaea, up to the present day.

-- *If one accepts Psalm 82, it has the same effect. Either, monotheism or the infallibility of the Bible is on the chopping block, it seems.

My take with Sells is, that there is nothing special about the architecture of the Christian gods. He wont say how Yahweh is differentiated from Middle Eastern tribal cults, nor, how Jesus is differentiated from Messiahism or Alexandria/Roman gods of those times. It is all much of a muchness,

-- Sells, I feel you should replace your "close -in" lense with a "wider angle lense”. Soon, I will run out of metaphors! You will see the patterns, if you stand back. It is my coaxing towards a more valid process, not an attack.

-- Martin, It would informative to work through those "arcane" answers, known to you, but not me. Thanks

I think this is where we part company Oliver,

You doubt the existence of an historical Jesus - a position that credentialed, serious historians universally reject. This puts you in the same category as those who endorse the existence of the Loch Ness Monster and the Bermuda Triangle.

Holding such blatantly uncritical positions is not going to encourage Sells or anyone else into thinking an answer to your questions will be anything other than a waste of their time. 'Nil sapientiae odiosius acumine nimio' (nothing is more hateful to wisdom than excessive cleverness)

This bloke puts it best; a great thinker who knows deep in his bones both unbelief and belief. Prof. J Budziszewski.

'Escape from Nihilism'
http://www.leaderu.com/real/ri9801/budziszewski.html

Look, for what its worth:

Of course Christianity is going to look like mere mythology, just another piece in your mosaic, if you presuppose the truth of the doctrine of religious pluralism.

". . religion is revelation. In other words, it is a vision, and a vision received by faith but it is a vision of reality. The faith consists in a conviction of its reality. That, for example, is the difference between a vision and a day-dream. And that is the difference between religion and mythology. That is the difference between faith and all that fancywork, quite human and more or less healthy, which we considered under the head of mythology. There is something in the reasonable use of the very word vision that implies two things about it; first that it comes very rarely, possibly that it comes only once; and secondly that it probably comes once and for all. A day-dream may come every day. A day-dream may be different every day. It is something more than the difference between telling ghost stories and meeting a ghost." GK Chesterton

A link on the difference in the character of YHWY to other deities of the ancient near east. www.tektonics.org

The relation of mythology to the Incarnation: I suggest looking into CS Lewis and his treatment of myth with the heuristic 'preparatio evangelica'.

Blessings for 2007

Martin, I wonder if you would be so kind as to expand on your unequivocal statement:

>>You doubt the existence of an historical Jesus - a position that credentialed, serious historians universally reject. This puts you in the same category as those who endorse the existence of the Loch Ness Monster and the Bermuda Triangle.<<

Apart from the anecdotal evidence that we are all aware of, what is it that has convinced all these eminent, credentialed, serious - but unnamed - historians?

Thanks in advance.

Incidentally, your analogy is all wrong. You cannot criticise someone for a belief in something that is supported only by anecdotal evidence, such as the Loch Ness Monster or the Bermuda Triangle, while simultaneously chastising them for their non-belief in something with the same characteristics.

If Oliver were impolite, he would probably point out that it a charge more likely to be laid against you, for exactly the same reason.

But of course he is far too well-bred to do so.

I think as human beings we all hope for a "greater good" than what is the current experience, our moment in time, and that giving up that moment or "life time" is even for those stated "unbelievers" a fearful fact when considering the end of ones life and all that life has given or taken. Even a human being living the most miserable of existence will not throw away his life casually. One hopes for many things. An understanding of the "reason" behind human existence, your personal existence is not an "unreasonable" hope.
That religions compete for ideological ascension, kill in the name of that religion, kill the "unbeliever". Make war. Burn buildings. Desecrate buildings. Burn books, torture and maim and kill the authors. Threaten the lives of those members of their very society. Destroy other societies. Kill, kill, kill, kill....
This is religion? This is learning? This is an expression of love and human fellowship? Out of this cesspool of hatred I must pick a team in order to be considered religious or a person of faith! God will hate me? Punish me for not joining in?
How many more hundreds of years must we endure this stupidity? What's the learning curve here? Where's the saturation point? When all societies revolt in the name of humanity and no longer in the name of God?

The last hundred years of theological thinking inherited two main lines of theological pursuit: classical Christianity and anti-supernaturalism. The antisupernatural stream, at least in the Hebrew-Christian understanding of "supernatural," may be thought of as making a new methodological beginning with Descartes (who, ontologically, placed God as mediation between thought and substance).

The growing power of physical science, in taking away the need for the hypothesis of God, has created a new hub for man’s attention on this world. A new interest in history and the development of stringent historical methods, plus the birth of the psychological and the social sciences have combined to give this focus. Overwhelmingly, the nontheological intellectual leadership has veered sharply away from all suggestions of supernaturalism as an active alternative for man’s understanding of himself and of his world.

Fundamentalism is the modern, partly defensive and partly aggressive response of precritical, classical Christianity. It creates a permanent gulf between the believer and the thinker, and offers no real way out. Another minor theological movement of our time is the continuation of the liberal movement; but besides being out of fashion (which is no criterion of truth!), liberalism suffers from internal bleeding and from weakening due to inconsistency between its content of faith and its method.

All are agreed - Marcel, Jaspers, Heidegger, and Tillich - that the foundations of being have been shattered, that the old objective knowledge of God, and of the values and principles associated with him, is no longer valid, and that as a consequence modern man is spiritually uprooted. The Nietzschean prophecy seems fullfulled in that that we are "groping our way in an infinite nothingness."

Truly the twentieth century has been rough on the gods by which our fathers lived: honor, thrift, industry, honesty, and brotherly love. For with the death of the gods have disappeared a heaven of values and ideals. Surely anyone who is sensitive to our times can hear the plaintive cry: "Ye take away my gods, ... and what have I left?" (Micah).

Relda it comes down to this. I dont believe in god. God has no relevance to my life. The problem being is I am under constant bombardment by what I consider insane notions.

Non-Believers who are they? They are everybody, not everybody believes in the rainbow serpent. Question two Christians and their beliefs come undone you will find no two beliefs in the same god are actually of the same god even if those people belong to the same cult. This is why religion has always been stuck in a wheel of conflict.

Believers claim their values are good , as an outsider I can see their values are more corrupt than the common everyday person.

There is no claim a believer makes that is in fact true.

Still we are bombarded.

This 'secular religion ' conspiracy theory is utter garbage. If secular society did conspire against the superstitious chuches and temples would be shut down and Christians and muslims would be locked up in Baxter.

Yet this is the very essence of what god believers want to do to so called non-believers.

West, the mind of a healthy sceptic can inform, “The true-believer syndrome merits study by science. What is it that compels a person, past all reason, to believe the unbelievable. How can an otherwise sane individual become so enamored of a fantasy, an imposture, that even after it's exposed in the bright light of day he still clings to it--indeed, clings to it all the harder?”- M. Lamar Keene

Ironically, the early dramas of many religions concern the relationship between believers and unbelievers – first the believers are persecuted by the unbelievers, then later on the roles are often reversed.

A ‘true-believer’ often has a belief not based on evidence, but on devotion to a person. That devotion can be so great that even the most despicable behavior by one's guru can be rationalized. There are many examples of people so devoted to another that they will rationalize or ignore extreme mental and physical abuse by a cult leader (or spouse or boyfriend).

The ‘belief’ shown above has no real preponderance for free-will. Just as the chance effects of the quantum theory might suggest a basis for ‘free will’ within nature herself, albeit at levels quite miniscule, Newtonian physics appears to ‘contain’ it. Two levels of understanding are appropriate.

A constraint is applied – dispense with the muddled postmodern concept that all ideas are equal. You cannot argue that Ptolemy's construct of epicycles is as good an idea as Copernicus' sun-centered system. This is utter nonsense. Science at its best does seek the closest approximation of "truth" at a given time. With this in mind, any borrowed idea or concept of God becomes unimportant

~~THE GOSPEL ACCORDING OLIVER~~

1. Histographies do seem to challenge the religions. A reading of Arnold Toynbee (1947) would suggest that the Jews were a much maligned people, both, under the Egyptians, and, later, under the Greeks.

Circa 600 BCE ,Toynbee suggests, that the Jews looked backward to their happier, but archaic, past. “Archaism is an attempt to escape from an intolerable present by reconstructing an earlier phase in the life of a disintegrating society”. The complement, futurism, took-over, driving towards the goal of establishing a Jewish Empire on Earth.

The decline of Greek civilization and the subsequent interregnum lasted for hundreds of years. The Jews became emboldened enough to be assertive, but did so at an “impossible time” (Toynbee), i.e., Rome in the first century. [Bad timing guys!]

-- The futurist mainstream notion of a Messiah, was the establishment of Jewish Kingdom “on Earth”, probably from the House of David. [More Messiahs in Judea than on a bird cage floor.]

-- Jesus, Joh or whomever, “may” have lived [Martin, please note]. But, Jesus and his merry band would have not fitted-in with the traditional Judaic futurist mould. Their’s was the Kingdom of Heaven. This concept would not put the little troupe in conflict with Rome, but, rather, with other Jews.

[Hence, we have two revolutions. In the Right Corner, carrying the Torah, we have the Jewish Empire to Come and in the Left Corner, wearing the long white robes, we have the Kingdom of Heaven to Come. In the then, here and now; we have Pilate and Herod trying to keep their jobs.]

2. If Jesus abandoned Godhood to live amongst we plebs, this is called “detachment” (from heaven), and, is what the big kids call, palingenesiac transference. Said transference, sets us up for… yes, transfiguration. But, according Christianity, Jesus did not, become an “ordinary” man, not truly detached. [Well, Asherah, packed Jesus’ lunch box. It is to be expected.]

3. Catch is, the Christian Church maintains Jesus is divine. This is problematic. Problematic, because, if, Jesus is divine, he is NOT “detached” from the godhead....

…Abandoning the Godhead would have been a much greater sacrifice than crucifixion, and, is what any self-respecting Saviour would do.

4. With TRUE detachment, from the godhead, a Saviour would certainly have been fully God-Made-Man, and, transfiguration would be more meaningful. But, according to Christians, this NOT what happened. We have something in between, as above, in Oliver 1-3.

5. Instead, we have a faith-healer running against the aspirations of his own people, and, he is handed by the Jewish leader to Pilate for capital termination.

6. Think about it… A real God~Made~Man would not have a virgin birth, not been divine, and, achieve only a second best sacrifice. The “detatchment”, palingensiac transference and transfiguration are too weak. [ Jesus doesn’t move fully between rooms. He, like a good salesperson, he keeps his foot in the (heavenly) door (between nexuses)].

7. A real Saviour would have become a ordinary non-divine Man and been born the normal way [ happier parents too] and died, three score years and ten. Here, the detachment is perfect. The return to heaven, and, any future Earthly visit, a pure transfiguration. G.O.G. [Good One God]

8. Moreover, a real Saviour would eat Quiche. God~Made~Man needs to watch his cholesterol, though.

9. Lastly, a real Saviour’s sacrifice would be universal and not particular. So, the religionists are just burning rubber, because, the atheists are saved too. [No strings? Doesn’t seem fair, Sells?]

Epilogue. No gods, messiahs, virgins or saints were harmed during the writing of this Gospel of O. Pilate left being a Prefect and purchased a Chariot Wash in Rome. Herod, actually lost his Chariot license. He did not rein well and had so many accidents, he was known as, The King of Dings. The Virgin Mary sold the branding of her Hymn Franchise to an ancestor of Richard Branson. Mary Magdalene lived a very long life, and, ultimately ran a nunnery for Hamlet, Prince of Denmark. John the Baptist, became a water purifier but could not swim. He went in over his head and was never Essene again.

~Here endth the Gospel of O.~

I didn't accuse Oliver of being impolite but wilfully ignorant of historical fact. But now you mention it I was a bit disappointed to return to OLO after an absence and after only one post be called mentally ill. So much for breeding. I learn also that history is reliable apart from a short period in first century Judea.

Jesus, being the most influential man to have ever lived was a pretty smart guy and clearly got a lot of things right, his answers to

"Who is well off?"
"Am I just a material body?"
"Who is a good person?"

Ought to be tested in the world like all the other answers, but I don't hear non-believer's world views being responsibly, rationally challenged. The answers Jesus gave to these questions have no where been proven false, we are just unwilling to come to grips with it, and prefer to ride the sociological wave. Those, however, that find themselves cross wise to this get called mentally ill.

To prevent having to defend a world view that has simply been absorbed by our surroundings we make self serving and ludicrous claims like "Jesus never existed" and hope to get away with it, afterall so many of us now are ignorant of Christianity and history itself.

Pericles what for most of our history would have illicited a yawn saying "Jesus is a historical person" now has you demanding sources. Lol

We're in an eerie period of history.

But I'll give you what you want.

NT Wright in his recent study of the Resurrection concluded that the empty tomb and the post mortem appearances of Jesus are as firmly established as the Fall of Jerusalem in AD70 or the death of Augustus in AD14.

Will Durant, of the Durants, the Pulitzer prize winners for History;

"The Christian evidence for Christ begins with the letters ascribed to Saint Paul. Some of these are of uncertain authorship; several, antedating A.D. 64, are almost universally accounted as substantially genuine.

No one has questioned the existence of Paul, or his repeated meetings with Peter, James, and John; and Paul enviously admits that these men had known Christ in his flesh. The accepted epistles frequently refer to the Last Supper and the Crucifixion.... The contradictions are of minutiae, not substance; in essentials the synoptic gospels agree remarkably well, and form a consistent portrait of Christ. In the enthusiasm of its discoveries the Higher Criticism has applied to the New Testament tests of authenticity so severe that by them a hundred ancient worthies, for example Hammurabi, David, Socrates would fade into legend. Despite the prejudices and theological preconceptions of the evangelists, they record many incidents that mere inventors would have concealed the competition of the apostles for high places in the Kingdom, their flight after Jesus' arrest, Peter's denial, the failure of Christ to work miracles in Galilee, the references of some auditors to his possible insanity, his early uncertainty as to his mission, his confessions of ignorance as to the future, his moments of bitterness, his despairing cry on the cross; no one reading these scenes can doubt the reality of the figure behind them. That a few simple men should in one generation have invented so powerful and appealing a personality, so lofty an ethic and so inspiring a vision of human brotherhood, would be a miracle far more incredible than any recorded in the Gospel. After two centuries of Higher Criticism the outlines of the life, character, and teaching of Christ, remain reasonably clear, and constitute the most fascinating feature of the history of Western man."

Even the skeptical scholars of the so called' Jesus Seminar' don't doubt Jesus' existence they just think he was an iterant sage or something. They are on the extreme left of Biblical scholarship here, to go past this is what called the 'loony fringe', and I'm not going to waste my time anymore engaging with ideas that are X-File in character.

Relda you appear to be saying in part that the belief in god is a form of insanity. I would well agree as the belief is superstitious (bad things happen if you don’t believe eg damnation). So the belief in god is well and truly a paranoid superstition based on paranoid assumptions. The belief in Karma is exactly the same thing. I for one do not care if people believe in elves, fairies, Jesus or the Ester Hare. I don’t care if people smoke in the privacy of their own homes. What offends me is when God believers project their paranoid superstition onto non-believers and expect some sort of misguided respect for the arrogance of being self obsessed to the point of thinking such ridiculous concepts as gods should have a bearing on another’s life.

This is inevitably translated into crimes against humanity such as terrorism, misogyny, racism, corruption wether its from the Taliban shooting women for listening to music or mass murder and suicide at the orders of Jim Jones, the Oklahoma bombing, the inquisition or Tony Abbot unleashing the rabidity and corruption of Catholicism onto Australian women and families.

Martin, Paul wrote fiction, he certainly did not substantiate a word he said, he was not even of the alleged apostles generation. The only credible author of the Bible would be Jesus himself but even if a man was used as a muse to base the fictional character of Jesus in the bible it was some down and out criminal. The occult magical Jesus in the bible is based on the Roman deity of Chrisos (Persian-Mithras). Even if Jesus wrote it he still would have to prove god existed and was everything he said about him. In fact only God could have written the Bible personally to give it a speck of credibility. Even then God would have to prove he is god and that his assertions are true. How would a god know he created himself and the universe that they were not created by a greater god? Or a greater God is not man who created god?

" Even the skeptical scholars of the so called' Jesus Seminar' don't doubt Jesus' existence they just think he was an iterant sage or something. They are on the extreme left of Biblical scholarship here, to go past this is what called the 'loony fringe', and I'm not going to waste my time anymore engaging with ideas that are X-File in character. "

Martin this is a very telling statement, apparently to you the political is spiritual.

Let us test your hypothesis, I challenge you to prove YOUR GOD is not Mao Zedong and Ho Chi Minh was not the second coming of Christ.
You may be blaspheming for all you truley know.

West, the final sentence of my last post suggests a ‘belief’ or ‘non-belief in God’ as being unimportant – especially in terms of superstition or ‘bad things happening’.

Any obsession or blind hero-worship can translate to either collective or individual behaviour of insane proportions. I believe you correctly differentiate between the political and the spiritual –something foreign to religious zealotry

Relda and West,

Judaism, Christianity, Mithraism and Zorarstianism all are theocenric religions of abnegation (reject the world.). Hinduism and Buddhism are cosmocentric religions, which also reject the world. Confucian and Greek philosophies are cosmocentric, and, accept the world. From these approaches we have many of the methods for the pursuits of what consistuents highest good,

(a) Mastery of the world
(b) Adaptation to the world
(c) Flight from the earthly ways
(d) Theoretical grasp of the world

Moreover, more primative religious designs, such with animists, have spirits, in things, such as rocks and trees. Spirituality is not on anthromorphic.

Lastly, many of the attributes, abovementioned, clearly exist in humanism, secularism, politics and science. Establishing a better life, controling the environment, debating differences (except Sells), and, understanding nature.

There is something foundamental to all these approaches. That would seem what we conventionally desgnate, "spirituality". Not, something, the Holy Ghost or even the Canterville Ghost. An ill-defined instrumentality which allows humans and perhaps high mammals deal with ecologies on a high level of existence. To the secularist it might justify moralities in the absence of mystical beings. A special level of cognition and empathy, but, raw intelligence or attachment. It underlies both religious ignorance and scientific pursuit. The crown monarch greater than any of its crowns (Thanks Bill).

Martin,

You challenge me to answer your unanswerable questions and I do. Know, I am post totally ignornat of history. Please tell me, where?
Aten? Are you saying he was not an Egyptian god. The Council of El? Are saying that isn't in the OT scriptures? Or do you deny the Hebrews/Jews wher malighned by the Egyptians, Greeks and Romans? Perhaps my appoximate dates for the gospels are wrong? The Judaic-Roman War? Other, mirror religions to Christianity? What? {West has already explaiined the Roman source documents.]

Sells,

You should read I.F. Stones's "The Trial of Socrates". There is interesting mention on the debate of those inclined towards self-rhetoric (you) and dialogue (me). You, meta[phorically, are like a snail until challenged. One small touch and its, whoosh, into the shell.

Martin,

(a) Please check my replies to Sells' latest article. I have very clear and succinct questions for you. Please look.

(b) Where are the (ignorant) histographies of Toynbee, Gibbon, Wells, Caroll and McNeill wrong, as these are the basis of my comments? Aten was not an Eypyptian god? Rome didn't exist? Paul didn't exert a Greek influence on the progress of Christianity? In terms of theocrasia, Christ and Mithras did not share many characteristics?

It can't be Nicaea (325), even Sells agrees the Council convened?

My approximate dating of the writing of some gospels? [Maybe, Paul's letters were c.55, not the early 60s. I can live with that.]

(c)I responded to your questions. Why not answer mine. Not some religionist site 30 degrees off tangent. I have not used Freethinker or Athiest sites.

Anyone,

Just for my interest. Bible 101 for me.

(a) Does the Bible actually say "Jesus" was a carpenter?

(b)Eymologically, in that period, was not a carpenter, a wheelmaker for car-ts? TV depictions suggest a wood-worker? License?

(c) Nazareth and Jerusalem on the map seem a long way apart to travel by foot. No mention (true/false?) is made of the Virgin Mary on the lead to the Crucifixion, but, all of a sudden Mary is at the Cross.

(d) If Pilate thought Jesus innocent, why did he do something so radical, as conduct capital punishment on Passover, which would have freaked the Jews under occupation? And Jesus had company.

Oliver may I suggest for a crammed history of the change over from the Roman to the Christian John Julius Norwich “A short History of Byzantium”. The first chapters of the book deals with the chronology of events surrounding the Councils of Nicea and indeed the influence of Constantine on the then new age belief of Christianity. The subsequent history to the capture of Byzantine by Mehmet makes good companion reading to other histories of Europe which you ‘may’ as a cross referencing reader see the influence the last vestage or symbol of the Roman Empire and the rise of a competing political God Allah in the South East had on the minds of Christian Europe.

Modern Christianity is certainly a different animal than the original Jesus Cult of the same name.

West,

Thanks I will look for that one, when next in bookstore or will send to amazon. I have read Burton Mack's "Who Wrote The New Testament - The Naking of the Christian Myth". I have not use it on these posts, because, I don't know how credible is Mack.

Very credible, I.F. Stone, finishing a thesis on the Trial of Socrates closes,

"That was the last glimpse that meagre history provides us the philosophical freedom in Athens until 529 A.D., when the Emperor Justinian closed the Platonic academy and other philosophical schools forever under the pressure of Christian intolerance and imperial avarice; their rich endowments were tempting." In Stone, Christianity is mentioned on only three pages of 250 pages and outside the key locus of study, so it is not about bashing the Christians, just saying it as it was in history.

Justinian, the Crusades, mass killings of Jews in eleventh century France, the Inquisition, Salem, the Church interfering with egyptologists in the nineteenth century, the Money Trials in the US,
the Vatican refusing to turns its lights-off where people could be killed in bombing runs, and Sells' self-supporting self-Rhetoric over open dialogue, today:

Well, Christians, if anything, are consistent. Two millenia, History's chief vechicle of death and ignorance. The hundred Hilters and two score of plagues. Hopefully, one day, humanity, justice and respect, will turn all away from the dark, dark epoch of the Christians, for all time. A fresh new dawn for humankind, built on love not hate, and, on sensibilities not unawareness, and, on debate not dictate. If one fails to hope for betterment, one fails to be truly "the paragon of animals", the best destiny for humankind.

Sells' dungeon of the mind or a Pope's dungeon in physical reality are not for me. We can do improve on this, We must.

Dear Oliver
you sure do like to complicate things old son....

Reading your posts causes me to imagine a bloke building a kit of a 1000 pieces, which is meant to end up as an eifel tower, but he ends up with a Sherman Tank....

Christianity is so simple.

1/ Love God with all your heart
2/ Love your neighbour as yourself.

Its being connected to the Father .through Christ.. the Son, 'by'...the Spirit.

Repentance and Forgiveness are the steps into that relationship.

Jesus preached a simple Gospel for a sinful world "Repent...for the kingdom of God is at hand"

Paul fleshed out the picture with his epic 'Romans' theology but the simple version remains as the distilled version "Repent...believe"

Its a simple call back home...from the One who made us and the world in which we live.

Secular religion ? my mind explodes trying to relate to that. But the term reminds me of this.

Romans 10:3
Since they did not know the righteousness that comes from God and sought to establish their own, they did not submit to God's righteousness.

Thats it...in a nutshell..thats Humanism, Marxism,Capitalism. Trouble is, establishing their own righteousness means deviating from the foundation, the anchor and in the stormy sea of life, could lead anywhere.

Boaz aside from God being myth and Jesus preaching immoral exclusionism, please explain how Tony Abbott or Jeffery Dharmer or Pinoche or Marcos or any of the popes or the inquistion, the ethnic cleansing of the Americas , the stolen generation , the IRA ,Timothy Mc Veigh, the Christians flocking to see Mel Gibsons films , the Christians flocking to protest against non superstitious films, the Christians that voted for Bush,Christians in the military,the thirty years war, the crusades, the thousands upon thousands of clergy arrested for child sex abuse , child assault,assault, fraud,the denialists of the truth of evolution and physics mirror your over simplified qualities of the superstitious?
When you ever find a Christian with the qualities that you claim in your theory ,please let me know. From personal experience the cult of Jesus has the opposite effect on people.

Boaz,

Simple,

- I beleive in the basic tenents of the Ten Commandments and dozens of other commandments too, MYSELF. Love, compassion, civility and empathy, can stand alone.

- In early posts, I have mentioned Lawrence Kohlberg, whom measured morality. The OT players and two thousand years of the Church --with some exceprions, of course-- wouldrate quite low. The OT God torments its creation and the Medieval Church tortures people.

-- Crucifixation rates, as high maryterdom, but not a supreme sacrafice. Many people have died for their beliefs or been caught-up in political intrigue. For pure sacrafice and transfigutaion to work, Jesus can not be divine, he must loose base/touch with the godhead, true sacrafice. Moreover, the sacrafice would need to be universal not particular... no need for churches and atheists are saved.

-- If the supernatural communicates [I doubt it does.]. How do you know, it is not a prentender? A Satan would substitute the perceived grand for the perfect. Something it can sell.

-- Christianity [what became Christianity] is not differentited from its theistic contemporaries. It follows the same basic patterns and has the same components.

-- God would have infinite band width. Why churches?

What is it in Christianity than cannot be found in living a goog life ONE'S SELF? [ Except, afterlife, a concept predating Christianity by thousands of years. ]

Q: Was Jesus a carpenter in the Bible? [I really don't know. Have not seen it in print. Not a trick.] Thanks.

Oliver is right. In reality millions of people suffered far more than the fictional biblical character of Jesus. To humour superstition if Jesus was indeed immortal then crucifixion would have created less suffering than an adult trapped in a wrecked car in a remote area. Jesus would have the 'knowledge' that imortality and eternal life would have made the event to himself vague and fleeting within such a long existence. To a mere mortal who is about to die lesser tortures make for far worst suffering and panic. Many Cancer victims would have suffered a thousand times more than Christ waiting as the doctor utters the C word. Multiply suffering from child abuse to mental illness, loss of a loved one to falling out of a window and countless humn disabilities. Christ wouldnt know the meaning of suffering. If he was devine his crucifixion is then an insult for he could have used his magic to escape it, he did not, his suffering was martydom thus decadence. If he was truley magic and also moral he simply would have ended all suffering forever with a wave of his fairy wand. A spit in the eye for all kids ever locked in the wardrobe for days at a time Christ chose to be crucified again his suffering was martyrdom thus decadence.

West,

Good post.

Martin,

If I have swamped you, we can have you answer one or two of my questions each week [without links, please]. You answer the questions. Just hit and run is a pretty poor show. If you are busy just say so, we all can wait a few days.

The most glaring and most relevant point to make about this thread an attempt to vilify secularism most obviously an attack on human rights and multiculturalism, perceived political correctness (politeness) it the role religion has played and continued to play.

A few in this thread have mentioned Hitler and Stalin as examples of the evils of secularism but it should be noted that these are examples of the results of ‘spiritual’ religion. Both Hitler and Stalin are notable for the persecution of Jews. Such persecution was based on Christian persecution of Jews which continued for most of Christian history and with a comparable volume of victims. In essence Hitler and Stalin were continuations of Christian power. Despite the enlightenment pushing back Christian tyranny to a secular 20th century the Inquisition had barely been quashed (by the secular Napoleon Government). Sectarian violence between protestant sects in the 19th century were still smarting in the German states in the early 20th. Where ever there was Nazi occupation churches used the fascist war machine to settle old scores. Japan undertaking its own religious based war in Asia and the pacific continued to allow Catholic missionaries to practice in Japan.

Today we witness most of Islam hostile toward peace and intolerant toward humanity , we witness American evangelicals hostile toward peace and intolerant toward humanity , we witness Australian protestants hostile toward peace and intolerant toward humanity. In Australia the Catholic church hostile toward humanity. In the Philippines, Africa and South America we see the Catholic Church hostile toward peace and intolerant toward humanity.

"A few in this thread have mentioned Hitler and Stalin as examples of the evils of secularism but it should be noted that these are examples of the results of ‘spiritual’ religion." - West

---"When I wooke upon the work of the past four ywars my feeling is one of graditude to the Almighty who [whom?] made it possible, and who has blessed our work ... How could a man shoulder the of this anxiety if he had not had faith in his mission and the consent of Him who stands above us?" - Adolf Hilter 1937

Relda,

You have been reading Quintilian. Will come on this matter.

Religions was actually the idea of the royal aristocracy, a plan to stop us from protesting and attacking their castles. These same 13 bloodlines (Windsor, Bush etc) now all sit in their high n mighty castles laughing at how quickly we can be motivated to war. These people include Kolvenbach,the Black Pope of the Jesuits and the Catholic Pope whom he controls. This is why Muslims are allowed to kill Catholics and Christians, as a Christians blind faith makes them all too stupid to realize what they belong to and how they are used by the puppet masters to manipulate the truth and worship Lucifer with their love of money sex and all things physical. Even Robin Hood new taxes were just to support the rich but todays people are brainwashed by conditioning. The NIV Bible was written by a Jesuit in New York to make people believe that God wants you to pay taxes and follow the Governments Law when in fact a better Bible version says that the only Law is Gods law and Governance causes the death of the soul.(Muslims are against governance because of the New World Order and they love Jesus as the son of God) Everyone knows that the Popes are Luciferian and attempt to claim Jesus thrown. They actually hate Jesus and always show him as emaciated. They worship the High Priestess with beads and a Sun cross not Jesus cross.(Slander is only slander if it is not true so I say this with confidence) If the Catholic Pope loved the real God he would not flaunt a 24 yr old gay lover in the Vatican Freemason Lodge Eclasia and the Vatican Bank would not be the richest in the World but instead give money to the poor instead of the rich.
Your insignificance is now obvous as the elite hierarchy goes:
1. Elite
2. Economy
3. Peasants and tax paying slaves.

Now do you see why the Economy is more important than the people.
*You are the slaves who serve the economy to keep the Rich happy.

DO YOUR RESEARCH PEOPLE>WHEN LUCIFER IS NO LONGER WORSHIPPED HERE JESUS WILL FINALLY RETURN>Kick that old man off Jesus thrown and end all religions and then see the truth!E=MC2
CATHOLICS most of all YOU MUST learn of the History of this Religion...Catholics ARE the people who killed Jesus Christ.
Theyre Illuminati/Freemason involvement causes Nations to War and they have caused mischief on the Earth all this time!If you really love Jesus Christ you would hate Religion especially Catholicism as it is EVERYTHING Jesus hated.
Free will (Muslims) or Control (Catholics/Christians/Jews)
CHOOSE NOW WHO YE FOLLOW

I have no idea whether or not the Popes are deceiving Humanity...Obviously this raises a few questions and should be looked into but PLEASE NOTE those last posts were not by Cin... However i did leave my desk briefly unattended whilst logged in.
My staff must be working too hard ...feelin like slaves perhaps?
Sorry guys :)

Thankyou Oliver, spirituality was commonly raised in Hitler's and other Nazi's broadcasts before and during the war. Fascism, Nazism and also communism were all moralist movements. Fascists and communist regimes dealt with pornography, prostitution, homosexuality, deviant language and in the case with Nazism - mixed marriages with draconian measures. There is little difference between Hitler's or Stalin's speeches and Tv Evangilist preaching.

Cin #3 the question surely is how can a man in a red cape and a fingernail hat decieve people? Basically the Pope is a Dungeon Master in a game of Dungeons and Dragons. People will decieve themselves in order to make believe in the magic that gods and elves require. The true deception is during the brainwashing phase at which time unfortunetely often involves children and so is a form of child abuse.

Cin #1 hit the nail on the head, Christianity as it is was developed to justify the power of monarchs.

Cin #2 is wrong as the basis of Islam is that Moslems are the slaves of god, they do not believe they are free. The concept of freedom in the west appears to be a product of Hellenist beliefs although reinvented by the pre-Norse and later the Libertarians of the Enlightenment.